Olga Belova: Mr Lavrov, thank you so much for agreeing to this interview today. Thank you for your time. We are recording this interview on the eve of the second round of Ukraine’s presidential election, so if you would allow me, we will begin with this subject, since it is currently making headlines. Against this backdrop we cannot fail but to recall the events that took place five years ago during the 2014 election in Ukraine. Since then the question of whether Russia had to recognise the outcome of the 2014 election resurfaces from time to time in the public space. What will happen this time around? Does recognising this election make any sense? We understand all too well that Russia has many formal and moral reasons to break up all contacts with the Ukrainian authorities.

Sergey Lavrov: Five years ago when the presidential election was called in Ukraine, it happened in the aftermath of an armed and anti-constitutional government coup that, for some reason, was carried out within a day after the signing of an agreement between the opposition and President Viktor Yanukovich. Moreover, foreign ministers of Germany, Poland and France assumed the role of guarantors under this agreement that was also proactively backed by the US. But the next morning the opposition announced on Maidan Square that they had seized power and had formed a government of victors. This is when they began splitting their people apart. This agreement was signed on February 21, 2014, and if we recall its text, the first paragraph sets forth the need to form a “national unity government.” Instead, they established a government of victors, and started treating everyone else like losers. They put forward multiple requirements that ran counter to the interests of a significant part of people in Ukraine, including minorities such as Russians and Russian speakers. All this brought about serious problems and triggered a referendum in Crimea as a response to the threats made by nationalists to expel Russians from the peninsula and attempts to take over the Supreme Council building by force.

Let me mention one more event. In mid-April, that is before the election was called, but after the referendum in Crimea, Geneva hosted a meeting attended by US Secretary of State John Kerry, yours truly, EU High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, and then acting Foreign Minister of Ukraine Andrey Deshitsa. At this meeting we agreed on a one-page declaration, and its key provision consisted of supporting the intention of the Ukrainian authorities to implement federalisation, that is to decentralise the country with the involvement of all regions. A representative of the new Ukrainian government that came to power in Kiev following a coup signed this document, guaranteeing federalisation with the involvement of all regions of the country.

But this commitment was instantly forgotten. Against this backdrop, when people started to state their intention to run for president, President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko was saying on every street corner that he was a “president of peace” and would settle the conflict in a matter of two or three weeks. It is for this reason that Western capitals, Paris and Berlin, urged Russia to refrain from making a statement rejecting the election outcome. We did refrain in order to give them a chance.

In early June 2014, President-elect Petr Poroshenko met with President of France Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President of Russia Vladimir Putin, when they all attended celebrations of the allied Normandy landings. The very fact that Vladimir Putin took part in this meeting, proposed by France and Germany, attested to Russia’s commitment to peace in Donbass and protecting the rights of those who were firm in their refusal to accept an armed coup. We proceeded from the premise that Petro Poroshenko was primarily elected for this promise to resolve the problem peacefully. With this in mind, I would refrain from stirring up the past on this particular matter.

By the way, during the Normandy format meetings that followed, Petr Poroshenko proved that he was not a “president of the peace,” and was forced by the developments on the ground to sign the Minsk Agreements. Russia also believed that it was unacceptable for him to consistently fool his people, while also lying to his curators abroad, since they were irritated by Poroshenko “getting out of hand.” I am talking about the Europeans represented within the Normandy Format, namely France and Germany. When the Minsk Agreements were signed everyone let out a sigh of relief, considering that this created a clear path to peace, especially since the UN Security Council approved the Minsk Agreements, thus implementing them into international law. However, in this sphere as well Petr Poroshenko proved to be very apt in dodging responsibility, turning for protection to the US administration which does not encourage Ukraine to abide by the Minsk Agreements. The Europeans found themselves in an awkward situation.

This was a look at the past, but coming back to your question, we have seen electoral programmes released by Petr Poroshenko and Vladimir Zelensky. We see how they approached the run-off. I have the impression that what matters the most for them at this point is to attract voters by some kind of a constructive agenda in order to secure victory. This is what their efforts are all about. I would rather not draw any final conclusions on what Vladimir Zelensky’s policy will look like if he is elected president, which is a done deal as far as observers are concerned. I would refrain from paying too much attention to declarations coming from his campaign. We have to wait for the second round results when they will have to deal with real things instead of campaign slogans and propaganda. Only then will we understand what this person as president thinks about the millions of his compatriots who speak Russian, love the Russian language and culture and want to live according to their values and the values of the winners in the Great Patriotic War, instead of being guided by values that extoll Roman Shukhevich, Stepan Bandera and other Petlyuras.

Olga Belova: You said we need to wait for the president-elect to take actual steps. Everyone realises that it is imperative to sit down and talk no matter what happens. What should Kiev’s first actions, statements and steps be so that, to use your words, Moscow “gives them another chance” to a peaceful resolution of the situation?

Sergey Lavrov: Most importantly, the new or old government should be able to talk and reach agreements and to respect international law and Ukraine’s international obligations. Such obligations include an international legal instrument which is the UN Security Council resolution, which approved the Minsk Agreements. A direct dialogue between Kiev, on the one hand, and Donetsk and Lugansk, on the other hand, lies at the core of these agreements. This will be the key to success. To reiterate, we heard about the plans to continue the settlement in the election statements, in particular, on the part of Mr Zelensky and his staff, but this time with the involvement of the United States and Great Britain and without direct dialogue with the proclaimed republics − DPR and LPR.

When contenders for a post make such statements, they will then be somehow tied in with such a position in the future. I hope that life will make them realise that there’s no alternative to implementing the Minsk Agreements and, in any case, that there’s no alternative to direct dialogue with the people who represent an enormous part of your nation, if you still consider them to be such, of course.

Olga Belova: We see that so far no one has been talking to them, and there’s no direct dialogue with the republics. Recently, the DPR published the foreign policy concept which shows a certain dualism: on the one hand, there’s a commitment to the Minsk Agreements and, on the other hand, the Republic of Donbass recognises itself as an independent state. What does Moscow think about the dualism of this document? What is your vision of the future of that region following the elections?

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t see anything unusual here, because these republics proclaimed sovereignty five years ago, in May 2014, responding to what we just talked about, namely, radical nationalists who came out with strong anti-Russian statements and launched an attack on the language, cultural and religious rights of ethnic minorities. It started a long time ago. These republics responded by declaring independence. Let’s remind our Western colleagues, if they ever take any interest in these unpleasant facts from recent history, that these republics did not attack the rest of Ukraine. The rest of Ukraine declared them terrorists. This, of course, is a stunning phenomenon in modern diplomacy and politics.

The rest of Ukraine was represented by the putschists who seized power in Kiev and launched an attack on millions of their fellow citizens demanding that they submit to illegal authorities. So, as I understand it, independence was simply reaffirmed in these doctrinal documents adopted in Donbass. But after this independence was declared five years ago in May − returning to what we think about the then elections and the election of Poroshenko solely because he proclaimed that his goal was immediate peace and an immediate agreement on resolving the Donbass problem by way of talks, Russia talked these republics into agreeing to a political process.

Political and diplomatic efforts were interrupted by the military actions of Kiev, which did not respect the truce and ceasefire agreement. There was the August offensive which ended badly for the Ukrainian armed forces and, most importantly, claimed a huge number of human lives, followed by the January offensive in Debaltsevo. Only after receiving a rebuff, did Petr Poroshenko sit down at the negotiating table. That’s how the Minsk Agreements were signed.

I was in Minsk and saw how the leaders of the four countries spent 17 hours at the negotiating table taking short breaks, mostly talking between themselves, and sometimes inviting us as experts to clarify certain fine points. It took considerable effort to convince the leaders of the DPR and LPR who were present in Minsk to give the go-ahead to the Minsk Agreements. We did it. We convinced them to once again demonstrate their willingness, even determination, if you will, to achieve peace with the rest of Ukraine.

Unfortunately, the way the current Ukrainian authorities see our efforts is disappointing. Despite provocations, we will push for these agreements to be implemented. We are a country that is capable of reaching agreements.

Olga Belova: That is, if I understood you correctly, Moscow is still capable and willing to continue to influence the leadership of these republics? Are we going to push them to sit down and talk as best we can, or not? I’m asking this because the leaders of the republics have made it clear that they have parted ways with Kiev.

Sergey Lavrov: You said there was a dual decision to reaffirm independence and commitment to the Minsk Agreements. To a certain extent (I will not frame it in terms of a percentage), this is the result of our influence on them and our call for them not to follow the example of the Ukrainian authorities which break down and trample upon their own promises. We will continue to exert this influence. We have long been calling, above all, the Germans and the French, to realise their responsibility for Kiev’s behaviour, because the Minsk Agreements involve, above all, proactive steps on the part of the Ukrainian authorities. The Contact Group is the only format where Donetsk, Lugansk and Kiev sit down at one table with the representatives of the OSCE and Russia. It took an inordinate amount of effort to create it, primarily because Mr Poroshenko began to back pedal shortly after the Minsk Agreements had been signed, and refused to maintain direct dialogue with the republics. But we forced our Ukrainian colleagues do that. Although in practical work − the Contact Group meets every month − and even more often than that the Ukrainian government outwardly sabotages everything that was agreed upon, be it security, separating forces and means, the political process, coordinating the formula for conducting elections or providing this region with a special status in accordance with the Minsk Agreements. There is an open and blatant sabotage. We need to understand how the election results will affect the Ukrainian delegation’s activities in the Contact Group, and what kind of people will be delegated there.

Olga Belova: Indeed, now everything depends on how the presidential election will end, including the situation in the Kerch Strait, which was endlessly brought up in the first part of the campaign, before the first round. How harshly are we ready to respond if another provocation is made, especially considering that NATO has declared its readiness to support Ukrainian warships if they undertake another breakthrough?

Sergey Lavrov: Morally and politically – maybe they will support it. But I do not see a situation where NATO ships will join these adventurers for a military provocation. I do not foresee such a situation, and, considering the information that we have, I have reason to believe that this has already been decided at NATO.

Olga Belova: So all the support they will be getting is just words?

Sergey Lavrov: Probably, as it was the last time, a condemnation, and once again they will come up with some new sanctions. As we have said many times, we have no problem with Ukrainian warships passing from the Black Sea to their ports in the Sea of ​​Azov. The only condition is to comply with the safety requirement for navigation along the Kerch Strait. It is a complex stretch of water, which is quite shallow and doesn’t go in a straight line and requires compulsory pilotage as well as coordination when it comes to the weather conditions. All ships — and there are thousands of them — stop at the entrance to the Kerch Strait, report to the channel operators, pilotage, recommendations, and, depending on the weather forecast, move on to the Sea of ​​Azov, as was done before Ukraine’s warships last November. They passed smoothly without any incidents.

In November 2018, Petr Poroshenko, obviously during the election heat, tried to create a scandal to have reason to appeal to the West again, complaining of Russia harassing him, and insisting on more sanctions. He is better at it than many others. So the warships tried to secretly pass through the Kerch Strait, trespassing into our territorial waters – the part that was Russia’s territorial waters even before the referendum in Crimea. What they did actually boiled down to probing the limits of those who ensure the security of the Kerch Strait and the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.

I must note that among the numerous arguments our opponents seem to forget is the fact that the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea actually implies a so-called unimpeded passage through the territorial waters of a foreign state, including military vessels, subject to several conditions. One of them is the mandatory fulfillment of security requirements, which in this case was grossly violated. The second is that a coastal state cannot allow military ships to maneuver through its territorial waters. That is, you either pass complying with the rules or you violate the Convention. What they did was military maneuvers, trying to hide from our border guards. This much is clear to all without exception. I have no doubt about it.

That we have nothing to hide can be confirmed by a very simple fact.

In mid-December, German Chancellor Angela Merkel asked President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to allow German specialists to observe the process to better understand what the hitch was and to study the conditions for passing through the Kerch Strait. Vladimir Putin immediately agreed. We reaffirmed the agreement and asked for their names and dates that would suit them. They made a pause, and then suddenly my colleague, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, said at a meeting in January when I reminded him of this that they wanted to bring French experts along.

I said that was new, but I was confident that our President would also agree to French specialists being on this study tour. But after some time, the Germans sent us the concept of their visit, which was not a single visit at all but involved establishing a kind of permanent observation mission, which would be associated with the OSCE mission in Donbass, and would also include Ukrainians. All of them would be staying in our territory doing I do not know what.

Olga Belova: You mean they actually wanted to come and stay there?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, they certainly wanted to stay. The Germans are usually very punctual and precise people. When Angela Merkel asked Vladimir Putin whether their experts could come and see, he said yes… Apparently, after that, they consulted with their big brothers.

Olga Belova: So they just thought it would be a good reason to enter and station their ships there?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, but this is an absolutely hopeless story. At the same time, I can assure with all responsibility that if the Germans and the French still have an interest in visiting and seeing it firsthand, so as not to rely on the gossip that the Ukrainian side spreads, they are very welcome.

Olga Belova: You believe that Russia will not directly clash with NATO ships in the Kerch Strait because NATO will not have the courage to sail there.

But there is another place where Russian interests clash with those of its Western partners, which is Venezuela. Will Washington decide to stage a military intervention there? What do you think of this? If yes, how far is Russia ready to go in this region? Are we prepared for a direct and tough stand-off in the region that would culminate in a peace enforcement operation against those who don’t want this, provided that all legal formalities are complied with?

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t want to bring up this scenario. I am convinced that Washington does not yet completely understand that its line regarding Venezuela has become deadlocked. They believed that the people of Venezuela would rebel against the incumbent government from the very outset, that they would be disappointed with the government’s inability to ensure the normal operation of the socioeconomic sector. Our Western colleagues took care of this: The United States froze the Venezuelan oil company’s accounts, and the United Kingdom impounded the country’s gold reserves. They hoped to stifle Venezuela using economic methods. When the crisis was in its early stage, they also organised humanitarian relief aid deliveries and tried to cross the Venezuelan border. Obviously, that was a very cheap show. Yes, they said all the options were on the table, but they obviously expected a blitzkrieg. However, they admit that no blitzkrieg took place. Indeed, the country faces a very complicated economic situation which was complicated and continued to deteriorate even before all this began. We repeatedly advised the government of Venezuela, at its request, how to launch economic reforms. Quite possibly, someone did not like this, and they also decided to halt this process, so as to prevent the situation from working in favour of the Maduro government. They decided to further stifle Venezuela by economic and financial methods. When the blitzkrieg petered out, when it became clear that the people of Venezuela had their own pride and a feeling of national dignity, when they became obviously insulted by a situation when, speaking from abroad, US Vice President Mike Pence noted that he was appointing Juan Guaido as Acting President, one should be very far from historical experience while hoping that the people of Venezuela would “swallow” this.

Today, when the Americans continue to say that all options are on the table, I don’t doubt the fact that they are assessing the consequences of an audacious military undertaking. It is highly unlikely that anyone in Latin America will support them. To the best of my knowledge, they are counting on one or two countries. I have no doubts, and I know that the Latin Americans have a great feeling of personal dignity. This would pose a challenge to all of them, all the more so as a righteous rejection of such a dictate has been accumulating for several months already, especially when the Americans de-mothballed the Monroe Doctrine and said it was quite appropriate to use this doctrine in the current situation.

On April 17, US National Security Adviser John Bolton said the United States was bringing its own version of freedom to the region. And what version of freedom does the region prefer? Would you like to ask them how they perceive their own freedom?

I hope very much that a line which stipulates talks and which is conducted by Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay and the Caribbean Community will prevail. President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro is ready for such talks, and he has repeatedly confirmed this in public. Juan Guaido emphatically and ostentatiously refuses, comprehending Washington’s support and counting on this support alone. It appears that he has copied the bad example of President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko who also behaved in the same way with regard to the need for conducting a national dialogue that would involve all political forces, and he hoped that Washington would shield him whatever the situation.

Olga Belova: Washington says it is bringing freedom to the region. But what is it that we are bringing to the region?

Sergey Lavrov: We want international law to be respected in the region as well as in the world at large. This means that states build their relations via dialogue and a balance of interests takes shape. This also means that we listen to each other and want to negotiate mutually beneficial security, economic and humanitarian projects as well as projects in any other spheres, where countries and peoples operate. Our relations with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) rest precisely on this basis. We are finalising talks with the South American Common Market (MERCOSUR). There is an agreement with the Central American Integration System (CAIS) and a number of other sub-regional organisations.

We have even-handed and good relations with practically all the Latin American countries. We don’t force anyone to do things we would like to get as unilateral advantages. The entire US policy towards Russia comes down to the US ambassador in any country visiting, with envious regularity, government agencies and demanding that they don’t receive Russian delegations, nor send delegations to Russia, nor trade with Russia, nor buy anything from Russia, particularly military products, and the like.

You can’t conceal information in today’s world. We learn this the moment these “visits” occur, the more so that the Americans are not particularly hiding the fact. They publicly say: Don’t communicate with Russia. It is Russia along with Iran and Cuba that are to blame for what is going on in Venezuela. They demand that not a single Russian soldier be found in Venezuela because the US wants it this way: no one located outside of the Western Hemisphere has the right to be there at all. Our explanation that the Russian military are performing contractual obligations servicing military equipment that was supplied on fully legitimate terms way back in the 2000s are simply disregarded. The fact that the US military and other NATO personnel – Britons and Canadians – have filled Ukraine is not mentioned. It looks like they proceed from logic suggested by the saying “What is allowed to Jupiter, is not allowed to the bull.” This is rotten logic, very much so, and it will not help our US colleagues. I am quite hopeful that they will come to understand this. Yes, within some historically very brief period preceding the next electoral cycles in the US, they are likely to reap certain benefits because they are brazenly putting pressure on countries that are unable to resist them. But in the long term, increasingly more countries will proceed from the assumption that America is just an unreliable and impolite partner that is abusing its influence in the world. The UN Charter insists on sovereign equality of states. We build our relations precisely in this way.

I cannot refrain from mentioning the fact that the United States has recently added a frontal attack on Orthodox Christianity to the arsenal of its policy towards Russia. Given that the Russian Orthodox Church was a world Orthodoxy leader, the crazy gamble involving the conferral of autocephality on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, known today as the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, a gamble undertaken by the Istanbul Patriarch Bartholomew, has been – we have enough facts to claim this – inspired and supported by Washington. Today Washington is engaged in tough diplomatic action as it works with other Orthodox Churches that have refused to support the Istanbul Patriarch’s self-willed decision. Its aim is to somehow make them recognise what has happened. This unceremonious and gross interference in church affairs is at odds with all diplomatic norms and international law in general. And this is deplorable.

We would like the United States to be a decent member of the world community. We are open to dialogue but their approach to relations is highly utilitarian and selfish.

They suggest that we and the Chinese cooperate with them when it comes to Afghanistan and North Korea because they are unable to operate successfully on their own there. And we accept this because a settlement in Afghanistan, on the Korean Peninsula and in Syria, on which we can communicate usefully, is also in our interests. We don’t dig in our heels and say that we will not negotiate on these issues if they don’t want to discuss other ones. Our position is more pragmatic. Russia is ready to work with all influential parties who see eye to eye with us and can help to achieve a settlement.

But generally their policy towards Russia is based solely on the wish to make us accept their unilateral domination and renounce international law. This is deplorable and cannot last ad infinitum. The Americans will be unable to sustain this course for long. They are antagonising a huge number of countries. So, it is in their best interests to come back to square one and start talking to all countries respectfully. Currently, they are doing this arrogantly, something that cannot help their interests.

Olga Belova: We do need to talk, but so far talking to these Western partners of ours has been quite challenging. There is a saying: Those who do not want to talk with Sergey Lavrov will have to deal with Sergey Shoigu. This echoes what you have been saying. In your opinion, who is the main guardian of peace now, the military or the diplomats? What enables Russia to maintain parity: state-of-the-art armaments or the power of words? Who has priority at present?

Sergey Lavrov: When the Soviet Union was being dissolved, pro-democracy forces both here in Russia and in the West were ecstatic. There was a theory whereby the factor of strength in international relations was no longer relevant now that the bipolar world order was no more, the Cold War became a thing of the past, ideological differences faded away and we all came together on a strong democratic footing. This euphoric state persisted for several years. The situation was far from rosy of course, but as you may remember, in the 1990s Russia was young and proactive in its commitment to working with the US and NATO, all but deciding to join the alliance. However, disillusionment came very quickly. It dawned on everyone that behind the veil of these beautiful words the West meant only one thing: Russia was to give up on using the factor of strength in its policy, while the West would continue relying on it. Why was NATO still around after the Warsaw Pact was dissolved? How come we did not come together within the OSCE to transform it into a pan-European, Euro-Atlantic organisation without any western or eastern variants in order to address all questions without exception based on consensus? It did not happen. Of course, the plan they nurtured was to use Russia’s weakness in the first years after the collapse of the Soviet Union in order to achieve an overwhelming military and strategic advantage.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has talked about this on numerous occasions. It became clear to us that our positive attitude towards the West was not reciprocal. The West continued to push NATO further east in violation of all possible promises, moving its military infrastructure to our borders, and there was no end in sight, especially when the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty. At this point, everything was clear. Decisions were taken, paving the way to the development of the weapons the President presented during his address last year to the Federal Assembly. Of course, it is highly regrettable that in today’s world no one will talk to you, unless you have a strong army and cutting-edge weapons.

Olga Belova: Has it become easier to talk?

Sergey Lavrov: When I was appointed to this post, the situation was already beginning to change. However, I would not say that talking was a challenge before, and that now things are easier. Unfortunately, the US, as our main partner, labelled Russia its “high-priority adversary,” as you have said. Later the US backtracked, and propelled China to this position. Later Russia was again on the list, and after that we were accompanied by China and Iran. They want to set their policy straight. They want to be in total control, but have yet to understand how this can be done. Sanctions work in some cases, but definitely not with Russia. They will not work with other countries that respect their history and identity.

We have no problems talking with the Europeans when it comes to relations with each specific country. There are challenges in our dialogue with NATO, since the US decided to convene meetings of the Russia-NATO Council with the sole purpose of lecturing us on Ukraine and other matters or criticising us for allegedly violating and dismantling the Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. We do not intend to attend any meetings of this kind in the future. If they want to have a serious conversation, they have to convene a Russia-NATO Council meeting at the military level. The outgoing Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO Allied Command Operations, General Curtis Scaparrotti, recently voiced regret over the lack of military-to-military interaction with Russia that existed even during the Cold War. Better late than never. Let us hope that his successor in this position is receptive to this advice. This is what we hope for.

We have a very good dialogue with each country of the European Union. Yes, we sometimes happen to disagree. We have problems with the Baltic countries, with Poland, but we are ready to talk about them. Especially because the Baltic states are our neighbours, and we have good trade and investment cooperation in business. There are also security issues, because NATO is pushing its units into Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. It is too close to our borders. At the same time, NATO is moving away from implementing the understandings we reached following the initiative of President of Finland Sauli Niinisto concerning flight safety over the Baltic. We responded to it; our military proposed ideas that would help allay concerns. It is possible to talk with everyone. On a bilateral basis, even the Baltic countries show interest: President of Estonia Kersti Kaljulaid has visited Moscow. We are talking in a neighbourly way about what we can do so that people can live comfortably and there would be no security concerns. But the collective platforms – NATO and the EU – are dominated by mutual responsibility: the Russophobic minority in the EU imposed sanctions on Russia, punishing us for supporting the will of the people of Crimea. This position of the European Union is now extended every six months, and no one can do anything, although individually, they assure us that the majority already understands that this is a dead end and something needs to be done. We are patient people, but as long as the EU as an organisation is not ready to restore all the mechanisms of our strategic partnership – we used to have summits twice a year, a ministerial council that oversaw more than 20 sectoral dialogues, four common spaces … All that was frozen because someone decided to try to “punish” us. Funny, honestly.

We are always open to honest, equal and respectful dialogue both through the military and through diplomatic channels. We have a very good tradition with a number of countries, in particular, with Italy and Japan, the 2 + 2 format, when Sergey Shoigu and I meet with our colleagues, the four of us. This is a very interesting format. It enables us to consider security issues through the prism of diplomacy and vice versa – purely military issues in foreign policy. We had such formats with the Americans and the British – but they froze them on their own initiative. But with the Italians and the Japanese, we continue these processes.

Olga Belova: I seem to understand why they froze them. Because when you two come to the negotiations, it’s simply impossible to resist you in such a duo.

Olga Belova: You’re modest and polite – but are you ready to give everyone a second chance, as with Ukraine?

Sergey Lavrov: Some do not need to be given a chance – they already rely on their national interests, not on what some foreign brother tells them. But if someone digs in their heels and expects an apology from us – well, we have nothing to apologise for. Our actions are guided by international law, and the UN Charter. We respect the right of any nation to determine its own future. This also applies to the rights of national minorities, in Crimea or anywhere else. We are always ready for dialogue.

Crimea is essential to Russia strategically and economically, but speculation over Ankara helping to boost the US presence in the Black Sea is far-fetched given Turkey’s energy deals with Moscow.

A power struggle over the Black Sea between Russia and the US plus NATO has the potential to develop as a seminal plot of the 21st century New Great Game – alongside the current jostling for re-positioning in the Eastern Mediterranean.

By now it’s established the US and NATO are stepping up military pressure from Poland to Romania and Bulgaria all the way to Ukraine and east of the Black Sea, which seems, at least for the moment, relatively peaceful, just as Crimea’s return to Russia starts to be regarded, in realpolitik terms, as a fait accompli.

After a recent series of conversations with top analysts from Istanbul to Moscow, it’s possible to identify the main trends ahead.

Just as independent Turkish analysts like Professor Hasan Unal are alarmed at Ankara’s isolation in the Eastern Mediterranean energy sphere by an alliance of Greece, Cyprus and Israel, Washington’s military buildup in both Romania and Bulgaria is also identified as posing a threat to Turkey.

It’s under this perspective that Ankara’s obstinance in establishing a security “corridor” in northern Syria, east of the Euphrates river, and free from the YPG Kurds, should be examined. It’s a matter of policing at least one sensitive border.

Still, in the chessboard from Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf, Turkey and Crimea, the specter of “foreign intervention” setting fire to the Intermarium – from the Baltics to the Black Sea – simply refuses to die.

‘Russian lake’?

By the end of the last glacial era, around 20,000 years ago, the Black Sea – separated from the Mediterranean by an isthmus – was just a shallow lake, much smaller in size than it is today.

The legendary journey of Jason and the Argonauts, before the Trojan war, followed the Argo ship to the farther shore of Pontus Euxinus (the ‘Black Sea’) to recover the Golden Fleece – the cure for all evils – from its location in Colchis (currently in Georgia).

In Ancient Greece, steeped in mythology, the Black Sea was routinely depicted as the boundary between the known world and terra incognita. But then it was “discovered” – like America many centuries later – to the point where it was configured as a “string of pearls” of Greek trading colonies linked to the Mediterranean.

The Black Sea is more than strategic, it’s crucial geopolitically. There has been a constant drive in modern Russian history to be active across maritime trade routes through the strategic straits – the Dardanelles, the Bosphorus and Kerch in Crimea – to warmer waters further south.

As I observed early last month in Sevastopol, Crimea is now a seriously built fortress – incorporating S-400 and Iskander-M missiles – capable of ensuring total Russian primacy all across the eastern Black Sea.

A visit to Crimea reveals how its genes are Russian, not Ukrainian. A case can be made that the very concept of Ukraine is relatively spurious, propelled by the Austro-Hungarian empire at the end of the 19th century and especially before World War I to weaken Russia. Ukraine was part of Russia for 400 years, far longer than California and New Mexico have been part of the US.

Now compare the reconquest of Crimea by Russia, without firing a shot and validated by a democratic referendum, to the US “conquests” of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya. Moreover, I saw Crimea being rebuilt and on the way to prosperity, complete with Tatars voting with their feet to return; compare it to Ukraine, which is an IMF basket case.

Crimea is essential to Russia not only from a geostrategic but also an economic point of view, as it solidifies the Black Sea as a virtual “Russian lake”.

It’s immaterial that Turkish strategists may vehemently disagree, as well as US Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker who, trying to seduce Turkey, dreams about increasing the US presence in the Black Sea, “whether on a bilateral basis or under EU auspices.”

Under this context, the building of the Turk Stream pipeline should be read as Ankara’s sharp response to the rampant Russophobia in Brussels.

Ankara has, in tandem, consistently shown it won’t shelve the acquisition of Russian S-400 missile systems because of American pressure. This has nothing to do with pretentions of neo-Ottomanism; it’s about Turkey’s energy and security priorities. Ankara now seems more than ready to live with a powerful Russian presence across the Black Sea.

It all comes down to Montreux

Not by accident the comings and goings on NATO’s eastern flank was a key theme at last summer’s biennial Atlanticist summit. After all, Russia, in the wake of reincorporating Crimea, denied access over the eastern Black Sea.

NATO, though, is a large mixed bag of geopolitical agendas. So, in the end, there’s no cohesive strategy to deal with the Black Sea, apart from a vague, rhetorical “support for Ukraine” and also vague exhortations for Turkey to assume its responsibilities.

But because Ankara’s priorities are in fact the Eastern Mediterranean and the Turkish-Syrian border, east of the Euphrates river, there’s no realistic horizon for NATO to come up with permanent Black Sea patrols disguised as a “freedom of navigation” scheme – as much as Kiev may beg for it.

What does remain very much in place is the guarantee of freedom of navigation in the Dardanelles and Bosphorus straits controlled by Turkey, as sanctioned by the 1936 Montreux Convention.

The key vector, once again, is that the Black Sea links Europe with the Caucasus and allows Russia trade access to southern warm waters. We always need to go back to Catherine the Great, who incorporated Crimea into the empire in the 18th century after half a millennium of Tatar and then Ottoman rule, and then ordered the construction of a huge naval base for the Black Sea fleet.

By now some facts on the ground are more than established.

Next year the Black Sea fleet will be upgraded with an array of anti-ship missiles; protected by S-400 Triumf surface-to-air missile systems; and supported by a new “permanent deployment” of Sukhoi SU-27s and SU-30s.

Far-fetched scenarios of the Turkish navy fighting the Russian Black Sea fleet will continue to be peddled by misinformed think tanks, oblivious to the inevitability of the Russia-Turkey energy partnership. Without Turkey, NATO is a cripple in the Black Sea region.

Intriguing developments such as a Viking Silk Road across the Intermarium won’t alter the fact that Poland, the Baltics and Romania will continue to clamor for “more NATO” in their areas to fight “Russian aggression”.

And it will be up to a new government in Kiev after the upcoming March elections to realize that any provocation designed to drag NATO into a Kerch Strait entanglement is doomed to failure.

Ancient Greek sailors had a deep fear of the Black Sea’s howling winds. As it now stands, call it the calm before a (Black Sea) storm.

Note by The Saker: Eugenia and the other translators were wondering whether it was worth translating such a demented piece of proposed legislation, but I asked them to go ahead and do it even though I fully agree with them that the author of this text is clearly completely insane and the ideas this draft legislation are the product of sick, hateful and infinitely stupid minds. But that is precisely the point!

I am personally sick and tired of the western patrons and sponsors of the Euromaidan and of the very notion of a “Ukraine” constantly trying to constantly put some half-way decent make-up on what are the demented, corrupt and, yes, Nazi faces of the ruling Ukronazi junta in Kiev. The truth is that just like in the cases of Noriega, Saddam Husein, al-Qaeda, the Takfiris in Syria and elsewhere, the West is yet again allied with, and protector of, an ugly clique of hateful and demented people. This resolution is a very good example of the kind of ideas which this AngloZionist ruling gang of thugs have advocated for many decades (beginning with the hate-saturated propaganda of RFE/RL, VOA, BBC, DW and the rest of them), then inside the Ukraine since even before 1991 and now from the Ukie Rada and Presidency.

When we post this text, we are simply holding up a mirror to the collective face of the AngloZionists but, as we say in Russian, don’t blame the mirror if your face looks crooked! This translation is important because it shows what kind of demented monsters the collective West has lovingly nurtured for decades. It is also important because it is a direct attack on Poroshenko from the Nazi-crazies in the Rada, folks who might well one day replace him as the President of the “Independent Euro-compatible the Ukraine”. When that happens, at least they won’t be quite able to say “we did not know”. Yes, you did know, you have known for decades, and at the end of the day, this resolution is not the product of the demented mind of one crazy Ukie, but a pure product of the rabid russophobia of the collective West. And for that I say: shame on you!The Saker
——-

Friday, December 21st, was Rada’s last day in section before winter recess. It will be back on January 5th, 2019.

Vitaly Kupriy (member of the Ukrainian Rada)

Down with usurpation!

“The hybrid” war must be stopped!

Poroshenko is an enemy of the Ukrainian state, who skillfully fools some of our people. One part of his uninterrupted lies is his stated intention to win the war with Putin.

He sends our service people to be captured or killed, but neither wants to nor has the ability to free our territory. Recently, this happened with our sailors. The existence of the so-called “hybrid” war with Russia allows Putin to mock our patriots, keep them in jail like criminals, because de-jure during the fifth year of the war we do not have an enemy. Even the international UN court in 2017 did not recognize Russia as an aggressor or even a combatant.

There is no hybrid war. Tens of thousands have died, hundreds of thousands were maimed, millions lost their dwellings. What kind of hybrid is this? It is obvious that this kind of war keeps Poroshenko in power, and he makes a lot of money on the blood spilled.

This hapless, unlawful position of Poroshenko does not allow us to ask for the international help, as everybody believes that we are fighting ourselves. Non-declaration of war under clear signs of aggression contravenes the 1907 Hague Convention, and Poroshenko and Turchinov must go to prison for a long time for that.

I want to calm the Ukrainians. The declaration of war is not a prelude to an offensive at the front. But after that happens, nobody in the world would consider that we are aggressors. On the contrary, it will be the beginning of the full-scale non-military legal operation of freeing our territory and repairing the damage caused by Kremlin. This is the way to a peaceful victory, this is the way to save the lives of the Ukrainians!!!

Our tough and lawful position as well as ratification of the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, the established status of Russia as a hostile country and aggressor at the level of UN will force our “allies” to introduce real sanctions against Russia, up to disconnection from the international paying system SWIFT, introduction full-scale trade and economic embargo, etc. We also must introduce serious sanctions against the aggressor, impound and nationalize all Russian property in Ukraine, cut diplomatic relations, try criminals-collaborators, as well as stop any official collaboration with Russia.

Then Putin would be unable to withstand that and will back off. He does not have the will or the force for any full-scale war with Ukraine. Otherwise, his regime will fold like the house of cards. Economic problems, failures in social sphere and pensions, a union of unhappy elites and the people would be the death of the ruler in the Kremlin. Putin understands that the “best” President for him is Poroshenko. Poroshenko would never dare to do what I indicated in my draft of Rada resolution. Poroshenko is a collaborator who helps Putin to remain on his throne.

I would also like to note that legal consequences of the declaration of war and of the identification of the enemy, as well as cancellation of the martial law, will not include taking away any constitutional human rights. The elections won’t be cancelled, people will keep living their normal lives. In contrast, the introduction of martial law without declaration of war and identification of the enemy is a game, the only purpose of which is that the person chosen by the Kremlin usurps power!

Appeal of Supreme Rada of Ukraine to the President of Ukraine about declaration of war, termination of diplomatic relations and the cessation of transport connections with the Russian Federation

Because of the annexation of a part of the Ukrainian territory, occupation by foreign troops of additional territory, as well as military aggression of the Russian Federation, taking into account the failure of the Ukrainian President to fulfill his constitutional duties to defend our country, our Fatherland, the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, Supreme Rada of Ukraine, expressing the sovereign will of the people and taking responsibility for the situation in Ukraine, as a sole national representative organ in Ukraine, declares:

Suggest the following to the President of Ukraine:

introduce to the Supreme Rada a suggestion to declare war at the Russian Federation;

terminate diplomatic relations with the Russian Federation;

create the General Staff structure under the Commander-in-Chief to organize a proper response to the country-aggressor;

inform the United Nations and countries who signed the appropriate international conventions about the state of war with Russian Federation and demand implementation of the international humanitarian law to free the Ukrainian prisoners of war and ban passing of military ships via Bosporus and Dardanelle straits;

request that Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense and Supreme Rada introduce martial law in occupied territories and along the war lines to 50 kilometers;

disallow restrictions on the constitutional rights of people on the Ukrainian territory where the martial law is not declared, including the right to elect and be elected to the national and local governments;

request that the Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense introduce personal sanctions against persons and legal entities from country-aggressor, including: block their assets –temporarily limit their rights to use and dispose of their property; limit trade operations; completely terminate transit of resources, flights, and transportation via Ukrainian territory;

initiate criminal prosecution of collaborators of the country-aggressor, including Victor Medvedchuk and other agents of the Russian intelligence, who constitute a threat to the Ukrainian national security;

To the draft of the Supreme Rada resolution “Appeal of the Supreme Rada of Ukraine to the President of Ukraine about declaration of war, termination of diplomatic relations and transport connections with Russian Federation”

Explanation why this act is necessary

The military aggression of Russian Federation against Ukraine lasts more than four years. In 2014, a part of the Ukrainian territory was annexed, and another part was occupied by foreign troops; armed aggression continues, and as a result, people are killed virtually daily.

Only on November 26, 2018, the Supreme Rada of Ukraine approved the decree of the President of Ukraine #393 “On the introduction of martial law in Ukraine”, which introduced the martial law in the following regions: Vinnitsa, Lugansk, Nikolaev, Odessa, Sumy, Kharkov, Chernygov, Donetsk, Zaporozzie, Herson, and in the Ukrainian territorial waters of Azov-Kerch area.

In spite of that, the President of Ukraine does not fulfill his constitutional duties regarding the national defense.

The article four of the Ukrainian law “On the defense of Ukraine” states that in case of armed aggression against Ukraine or a threat of aggression the President of Ukraine makes decisions about total or partial mobilization and introduction of martial law in Ukraine or its regions, use of the Ukrainian armed forces, other military units created in accordance with Ukrainian laws, submits these decisions to the Ukrainian Supreme Rada, and introduces to the Supreme Rada a suggestion regarding the declaration of war.

The President still has not introduced to the Supreme Rada a request to declare war at the Russian Federation, which, according to Article 106 of Ukrainian Constitution, is his exclusive competence.

Because of this, the Ukrainian Supreme Rada, as the only national representative organ in Ukraine, must propose to the President of Ukraine the declaration of war and other actions for the effective defense of the country, with a view of further defense of the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Goals of enacting this resolution

The goal of the suggested draft of the resolution is to exert political pressure on the President of Ukraine to make him fulfill his constitutional duties regarding the defense of the country against a foreign occupier – the Russian Federation.

Key points of this resolution

Suggest to the President of Ukraine:

introduce to the Supreme Rada suggestion to declare war with the Russian Federation;

terminate the diplomatic relations with the Russian Federation;

create the General Staff under the Commander-in-Chief to organize a proper response to the country-aggressor;

inform the United Nations and the countries that signed appropriate international conventions about the state of war with the Russian Federation and demand implementation of the international humanitarian law to free Ukrainian prisoners of war and ban the passing of military ships via Bosporus and Dardanelle straits;

request that the Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense and the Supreme Rada introduce martial law in occupied territories and along the war lines to 50 kilometers;

disallow limitations of constitutional rights of people on the Ukrainian territory where the martial law is not declared, including the right to elect and be elected to national and local governments;

request that the Ukrainian Council of the National Security and Defense introduce personal sanctions against persons and legal entities from the country-aggressor, including: block their assets – temporarily limit their rights to use and dispose of their property; limit trade operations; completely terminate transit of resources, flights, and transportation via Ukrainian territory;

initiate criminal prosecution of collaborators of the country-aggressor, including Victor Medvedchuk and other agents of the Russian intelligence, who constitute a threat to the Ukrainian national security;

Key laws that regulate these issues are: the Ukrainian Constitution; the Ukrainian law “On the defense of Ukraine”, the Ukrainian law “About the legal rules of the martial law”, the Ukrainian law “On sanctions”. The adoption of this resolution does not require changes in these laws.

Financial and economic basis

The realization of this resolution would not require additional spending of the Ukrainian State Budget.

Prevention of corruption

This draft of the resolution does not contain rules or procedures that create risks of corruption.

Prognosis of social, economic, legal and other consequences of the adoption of this resolution

The adoption of this resolution will exert influence on the President of Ukraine with a view of making him declare the state or war with the Russian Federation and take other actions necessary to defend the country, which would make him properly fulfill his constitutional duties to defend the Fatherland, the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues, friends.

Let us begin our traditional end-of-year meeting that we call a news conference.

As always, I will spend just a few brief seconds to sum up the results of the outgoing year. A lot has been said already, but I have the latest data reflecting the most recent results, some just a couple of days old.

In the first nine months of 2018, GDP increased by 1.7 percent, while the Economic Development Ministry expects the annual increase to total 1.8 percent. Industrial output was growing at a faster pace, totalling 2.9 percent in the first ten months of 2018, with the annual results expected at 3 percent, up from a 2.1 percent growth in 2017. In addition, processing industries have been growing at a somewhat faster pace of 3.2 percent.

In the first three quarters fixed capital investment increased by 4.1 percent. Cargo shipments and retail trade are on the rise, having increased by 2.6 percent. Consumer demand growth has been apparent. This is a positive factor. After a lengthy interval, the population’s real income has shown some, albeit very moderate, growth. According to the latest statistics, real incomes will increase by 0.5 percent. I hope that this momentum will be maintained, since real pay levels are on the rise, having grown by 7.4 percent in the first nine months, which is expected to give us 6.9 or 7 percent by the end of the year.

Inflation remains at an acceptable level, although it has increased a little in the past week, by 0.5 percent, I think. Therefore, we will be able to reach the Central Bank’s reference rate of 4 percent and will have an inflation rate of 4.1 percent to 4.2 percent – somewhere just over 4 percent.

The unemployment rate is going down, which is good news. If last year it hit a historical low of 5.2 percent, this year it will be even lower – 4.8 percent.

The trade balance surplus is growing. In 2017, if you remember, it was around $115 billion. Over the three quarters of this year we already achieved $157 million. As of the end of the year, we expect it to reach $190 billion.

Our finances are growing stronger. Our gold and foreign currency reserves have grown by over 7 percent. In the early 2018, they amounted to $432 billion while now they stand at almost $464 billion.

For the first time since 2011, we will have a budget surplus. We are about to reach the federal budget surplus of 2.1 percent of the GDP. The National Welfare Fund has grown by around 22 percent.

The average annual insurance component of the retirement pension stood at 13,677 rubles in 2017. By the end of this year, it will be 14,163 rubles.

Life expectancy has also increased slightly compared to 2017, from 72.7 to 72.9 years.

These are the general results that I wanted to mention in the beginning. Let’s not waste our time and proceed to your questions and my attempts to answer them.

Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov: Let us begin by giving some priority to the Kremlin pool. Its members worked with us throughout the year, following the President both in Russia and abroad.

ITAR-TASS, the state news agency.

Veronika Romanenkova: Thank you.

The year 2018 arguably went by under the sign of new national projects that you launched with the May Executive Order. They are expected to cost an enormous amount of money. However, some experts, members of the State Council, as was mentioned in Yalta only recently, have questioned the feasibility of these national projects and whether they are needed. How well thought out are the performance assessment criteria for the national projects? For example, the Accounts Chamber Chairman said that there is no way to assess their effectiveness. What can you say to counter this?

Vladimir Putin: I will have to begin by saying a few words on whether these projects are needed, since you said that some question this.

I have said it on numerous occasions, and I will repeat it today. We need a breakthrough. We need to transition to a new technological paradigm. Without it, the country has no future. This is a matter of principle, and we have to be clear on this.

How can this be done? We need to focus the available resources, find and channel them to the essential development initiatives. How can these efforts be organised? By simply distributing money, and that’s it?

First, we had to find this money. It took us the entire year 2017 to articulate the objectives and find the resources. Both the Government and the Presidential Executive Office contributed to this effort. By the way, when some call for more changes within the Cabinet, we have to understand that it was the Government’s financial and economic block that developed the national development programme to 2024. For this reason, they are the ones who must take responsibility for the plans they made. There is no way around it.

So how should this effort be organised? By simply distributing money? After all, as much as 20.8 trillion rubles are expected to go into the national projects alone, and another 6.5 trillion will be invested in a separate infrastructure development plan. Of course, the allocation of these resources has to be set forth in documents of some kind on achieving breakthroughs. You can refer to these development plans any way you wish. We call them national projects. After all, it makes it clear that there are goals that have to be achieved. If there are no objectives, you will never achieve the final outcome, no matter how you manage these investments. It is for this reason that the 12 national projects were developed alongside an infrastructure development plan. Let me remind you of the main vectors.

Healthcare, education, research and human capital come first, since without them there is no way a breakthrough can be achieved. The second vector deals with manufacturing and the economy. Of course, everything is related to the economy, including the first part. But the second part is directly linked to the economy, since it deals with the digital economy, robotics, etc. I have already mentioned infrastructure.

Why did we have this meeting in Yalta, Crimea, to discuss with our colleagues from the Government and the regions how we will proceed in these efforts? Because there are questions on how to assess performance under these projects. We need effective controls, while making sure that all efforts by the federal centre to monitor what is happening in the regions are effective. It is true that there are challenges in this regard, but we are working on them. So what is the tricky part? The tricky part is that funding mostly comes from the federal centre, and this applies to all programmes, while most of the efforts are undertaken in the regions. The regions must be ready to work constructively. Instead of simply hiking up prices in response to an increase in the available funds, they must focus on achieving concrete results that will be clearly visible. This is the first point I wanted to make.

Second, we need to understand whether they will be able to succeed. This is a real question. Some argue that this would be impossible. But this is what we hear from those who must deliver. Instead of having these thoughts they need to work on delivering on these objectives, and if they feel that they are unable to do so, they have to clear the way for those who are positive about their ability to deliver and are ready to work. To tell you the truth, I have not seen anyone who did not want to do it or said that it was impossible. These messages come from outside observers.

Without ambitious goals we will never achieve anything. For this reason, I do hope that the federal centre and the regions will be able to work together in a consolidated and positive manner. Yes, some indicators have to be adjusted. Our colleagues from the regions have submitted their proposals to this effect, and I have high hopes that the Government will take them into consideration and adjust specific indicators so that we can move forward effectively.

Pavel Zarubin: Rossiya TV channel.

I would like to expand on a topic that has already been raised. Many economics experts, including Alexei Kudrin, assert that in reality, the Russian economy has been growing just by one percent on average over the past ten years, and if so, this is essentially marking time, or stagnation. You set the goal of making a breakthrough, a leap, but for this, even if we take the lowest estimate, the growth rate should be at least four to five times higher. The Government promises to achieve the goal, but that same Government acknowledges that in the next few years, GDP growth rates will not exceed even 2 percent. In this regard, here are my questions: what does the Government rely on in its forecasts, in the planning of its work? Is a breakthrough possible at all, in this context, or will the economy continue operating like this: we make some money on oil surplus, put it aside, then spend it when there is a need for it? In general, are you satisfied with the Medvedev team?

Dmitry Peskov: Friends, I would ask you please to respect each other – ask only one question each.

Vladimir Putin: Look, economic growth has been one percent per year for a certain period of time. But, first of all, it was while Mr Kudrin was Deputy Prime Minister, so you must not blame the mirror for showing a crooked face, as they say. This is the first point.

The second is, one should not just count mechanically. I have great respect for Mr Kudrin, he is my friend and a good professional, and as a rule, I listen to his recommendations. He is a reliable specialist, a good one. But look, from 2008 to 2018, the economy grew by about 7.4 percent. In simple maths – yes, it equals one percent, a little more. However, let us not forget how the economy developed. There were higher growth rates, alternating with recessions associated with the global crisis. In 2009, after the crisis in the global economy, not in ours – Russia was not the cause of the global financial crisis of 2008–2009, it came to us from the outside – the decline was about 7.8 percent. Then little by little, we were crawling out of it for many years.

Then, in 2014–2015, another meltdown occurred – a collapse in the oil prices, our main exports. That is why I am saying we should not simply count mechanically.

However, of course, the country’s GDP, the GDP growth rate is one of the main indicators. But we will not be able to achieve the GDP growth rates necessary for this breakthrough unless the structure of the economy is changed. This is what the national projects are aimed at, and why such enormous funds will be invested, which I have already said – to change the structure and build an innovation-based economy. The Government is counting on this, because if this happens, and we should all work towards this, then the growth rates will increase and there will be other opportunities for development.

By the way, you mentioned the projected 2 percent growth for the next two years. Yes, in the next years, 2019–2020, two percent each, but from 2021, the Government is already planning 3 percent, and then more. Therefore, I strongly hope that we will manage to do all this. Some fluctuations are probably possible, but, I repeat, the most important thing is that we need… Do you see what we need to do? We need to join another league of economies, and not only in terms of volumes. I think that taking the fifth place in terms of volume is quite possible. We used to rank fifth in terms of the economy, in purchasing power parity, and we will do it again, I think. However, we need to ascend to another league in terms of the quality of the economy. This is what our national projects are aimed at.

Pavel Zarubin: Are you satisfied with the Medvedev team?

Vladimir Putin: Overall, yes.

Question: Good afternoon.

Mr President, in my city of Volgograd we had a wonderful year. We celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Stalingrad. You made it a federal holiday and we really appreciate it. You also paid us a visit.

We successfully hosted the World Cup and our region indeed began to breathe and develop.

There is a lot that still needs to be done. I think the economy will be extensively discussed. But Volgograd residents have a big wish and a great favour to ask. In 1998, the Kacha Higher Military Aviation School of Pilots, which had a very long history, was shut down.

It was established at the Tsar’s decree in 1910 and we were truly proud of it and want to be proud of it further. We want the military traditions to live on. Please consider re-opening it.

Vladimir Putin: In which year was it shut down?

Remark: In 1998, unfortunately. It had the Order of the Red Banner and a long history.

Vladimir Putin: You see, it is already 2018. It happened 20 years ago and I do not quite know what is left of this legendary school.

You are right, it was indeed a legendary school. But the Russian Defence Ministry plans personnel training resources based on whether there is a demand for specific types of personnel in the Armed Forces.

Therefore, we need to look at what can be done not only to remember it but perhaps to preserve the remaining traditions. I will make sure to look into this and consult with the Defence Ministry.

Mr President, the budget in the current year and the next year will have a surplus. However, starting January 1, a number of decisions are coming into effect that may cause a significant increase in prices of a wide range of goods and services.

For example, the VAT will increase to 20 percent, which has already triggered a two-stage increase in the housing and utilities rates next year. There is also the new tax for self-employed persons in pilot regions. Please tell us how these measures agree with the state’s economic policy.

Vladimir Putin: Housing and utilities rates in two stages, and what else?

Maria Balyuk: And, for example, a tax on self-employed people in pilot regions.

Isn’t this amount of new measures too much of a burden on Russians and the economy?

Vladimir Putin: You said about the surplus.

Yes, this is indeed a good indicator of the Government’s economic block performance. As I said in my opening remarks, for the first time since 2011 we will have a budget surplus of 2.1 percent. And this is good.

Let us not forget that as an oil producing country and a country that derives much of its revenue from selling oil and gas, we also have what is called a non-oil-and-gas deficit. This is what the country earns from selling products and services other than oil and gas.

Let me remind you that this non-oil-and-gas deficit was 13 percent in 2009, which is a lot. In the early 2000s, it was at about 3 percent, but the global economic crisis forced us to use our oil revenues to meet our social commitments and finance the Armed Forces, so we had to tap into the oil revenues.

In this situation, the non-oil-and-gas deficit surged into the double digits almost reaching13 percent, I believe. This was a very serious challenge for the Russian economy. We have now reduced it to 6.6 percent, and next year it is expected to decline to 6 percent and remain at this level for the next few years.

This is a very important indicator of economic resilience for the Russian Federation. Therefore, the increase in the VAT rate, among other things, is due to the need to maintain the non-oil-and-gas deficit at a certain level.

Second, in many countries VAT is 20 percent or even higher. It used to be higher in Russia as well, but we reduced it at a certain point. Now we have returned to a 20-percent tax rate.

However, the effective VAT rate for the overall economy will be below 20 percent since almost all benefits remain in place: for pharmaceuticals, children’s goods, and so on, including for IT companies. Many benefits have been preserved. With this in mind, the effective rate will be actually lower.

Finally, I do hope that the rate hike will be only a one-off measure with a possible slight increase in prices and inflation in the beginning of the year, after which the inflation will go down.

The Central Bank also seeks to prevent inflation from picking up. Only recently, the interest rate was increased by 0.25 percentage points.

While there are definitely both benefits and disadvantages to this decision, all this is done in order to prevent inflation and prices from growing. For this reason, I believe that the overall decision was correct and balanced, creating additional budget revenue and the possibility to deliver on our development plans as part of the national projects.

As for increases in housing and utilities tariffs, over the past years they grew by about 4 percent per year. It is true that next year there will be two hikes: the first one will be at about 1.7 percent, and the second one I think will be about 2.4 percent, but in total this still makes up 4.1 percent.

Why will the increase be spread out in two stages? The reason is that with a higher VAT, prices of some goods and services are expected to increase, and we need to make sure that the utilities sector does not come under stress.

For this reason, in order to shield companies in this sector from these developments and ultimately in the interests of the people, we decided to proceed in two stages. That said, the overall increase should not exceed 4.1 percent.

In some regions, where the utilities infrastructure requires major upgrades and bigger hikes are required, this can be done as an exception, and subject to federal Government approval.

Yekaterina Gagarina: Good afternoon, Mr President. My name is Yekaterina Gagarina. I represent the Rossiya TV channel in Novosibirsk.

The importance of the Akademgorodok 2.0 [Academic Town] project that you supported during your visit to Novosibirsk is obvious not only to Siberian scientists. This project is unique for the entire country.

But behind the technological component of this project there are a number of tasks of a similarly large scale. They include building housing, roads, kindergartens and schools. My question is what if our scientific ambitions crash at daily living problems? Will the scientists have somewhere to live?

Vladimir Putin: I would not want them to crash.

I understand that it is a very important part of the entire process. Of course, we will be working on this with the regional officials. When I visited Novosibirsk, I also spoke about this with my colleagues.

The first objective of the federal government is to honour its obligations related to the facilities which trigger the development of Akademgorodok – which, by the way, is the opportunity to earn money on these high technologies. The social component will definitely be carried out after this.

But if any additional action is required to resolve the scientists’ social issues, of course, we will try to do it. By the way, the mortgage sector has been growing lately. We will support it as well. It is growing very fast for everybody. The growth of the mortgage sector stands at over 20 percent.

But, of course, we will try to address these issues for Akademgorodok. If there is a critical need for a response from the federal government, we will discuss it.

Sergei Marov: Hello, Mr President. My name is Sergei Marov, Zvezda newspaper, Volgograd Region. I will start with small details and bring you to the bigger question.

I will give you a simple example. Next to our editorial office, there is a company which for nine years…

Vladimir Putin: A company?

Sergei Marov: Yes.

For nine years, it has been putting gigantic efforts into building a technological chain for full-cycle flax processing. Imagine…

Vladimir Putin: Excuse me, for the full cycle of processing…

Sergei Marov: Flax.

Vladimir Putin: I see.

Sergei Marov: From planting a seed to finished clothing. This is what they did.

It appears that the message from these industrial workers is clear. At the same time, when I was going to this conference, I had serious consultations with the company’s workers, and they said: “The last research institute dealing with flax is in the process of liquidation.”

The last training institute for executive personnel in the fibre flax cultivation is in the process of liquidation. We are receiving completely different messages from the industrial companies working on the product and from the government that is supposed to support these industries.

Therefore, I have a question. How do you assess the state of industrial production and its growth rate? Do you believe that at this stage the government provides sufficient support to Russian producers?

Vladimir Putin: Frankly speaking, I am not aware of the problems of this flax research institute. But in general, flax is one of Russia’s traditional industries. It has always been our signature product, our pride. I will look into this situation.

Usually the problem is worse than it appears from the outside. I just do not know the details of what is going on with that institute – although, of course, flax production, once again, has always been Russia’s pride. If the industry needs this institute, it may be preserved, but we need to understand how this can be done. I promise you to look into this.

Now over to industrial production. As I said, industrial growth in general is ahead of GDP growth at 3 percent. The processing industry has grown by 3.2 percent. This is a good performance indicator.

As concerns light industry, it is developing even faster. Over the ten months of this year, food production has grown by 13 percent, which is, by the way, confirmed by the consumption figures that are generally growing. Clothing and footwear industries posted a growth of 9 percent, a very good result.

Now, is government support sufficient or not? It is not. This is why we have mapped out a number of programmes to support specific production sectors. Overall, by 2024, this support will amount to 1.376 trillion rubles and will extend to the light industry, aviation, the defence industry and some other sectors.

We have individual programmes for major industries. Next year, they will receive 450 billion rubles in support. The year after, it will be 450 to 470 billion rubles. These are the indicators, the figures. The total funding stands at 1.376 trillion rubles.

Anton Vernitsky: Mr President, as Soviet-era children, all of us feared a nuclear war very much. As you remember, various songs dealt with this issue. One of them had the following lyrics: “Sunny world: Yes, yes, yes; nuclear explosion: No, no, no.”

Vladimir Putin: Are you not afraid today?

Anton Vernitsky: Forty years have passed, and major media outlets on both sides of the ocean are beginning to publish a scenario for a nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States. The word “war” is sounding more and more often at household level, in kitchens.

Mr President, how can you calm down my little son who, just like me, also fears a nuclear war today? What words and actions can calm us all down?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I think you are right.

I just thought that all this, including the danger of such developments in the world, is now being hushed up and played down to some extent. It seems impossible or something that is not so important. At the same time, if, God forbid, something like this happens, it might destroy the whole of civilisation or perhaps the entire planet.

These issues are therefore serious, and it is a great pity that there is such a tendency to underestimate the problem, and that this tendency is probably becoming more pronounced. What are the current distinguishing features and dangers?

First, all of us are now witnessing the disintegration of the international system for arms control and for deterring the arms race. This process is taking place after the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that, as I have already noted a thousand times, was the cornerstone in the sphere of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and deterring the arms race.

After that, we were forced to respond by developing new weapons systems that could breach these ABM systems. Now, we hear that Russia has gained an advantage. Yes, this is true. So far, the world has no such weapons systems. Leading powers will develop them, but, as yet they do not exist.

In this sense, there are certain advantages. But, speaking of the entire strategic balance, this is just an element of deterrence and for equalising parities. This is just the preservation of parity, and nothing more.

They are now about to take another step and withdraw from the INF Treaty. What will happen? It is very difficult to imagine how the situation will unfold. What if these missiles show up in Europe? What are we supposed to do then?

Of course, we will need to take some steps to ensure our safety. And they should not whine later that we are allegedly trying to gain certain advantages. We are not. We are simply trying to maintain the balance and ensure our security.

The same goes for the START III Treaty, which expires in 2021. There are no talks on this issue. Is it because no one is interested, or believes it is necessary? Fine, we can live with that.

We will ensure our security. We know how to do it. But in general, for humanity, this is very bad, because this takes us to a very dangerous line.

Finally, there is another circumstance I cannot ignore. There is a trend to lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. There are plans to create low-impact nuclear charges, which translates to tactical rather than global use. Such ideas are coming from Western analysts who say it is okay to use such weapons. However, lowering the threshold can lead to a global nuclear disaster. This is one danger we are facing today.

The second is the use of non-nuclear ballistic missiles. True, our US partners seem to have dropped this idea, but it still exists. What does it mean?

Suppose, a ballistic missile is launched, nuclear or non-nuclear. The missile attack warning system identifies the launch and the launch site, and, seconds later, determines the flight path and the possible warhead landing area. This is all on the verge of a possible error. It is terrible, and we cannot take it that far. Nevertheless, such an idea of using non-nuclear ballistic missiles exists.

Suppose, a submarine fired a ballistic missile from the World Ocean, but who the hell knows if it is nuclear or not, go figure. This is very dangerous. All of that is being widely discussed, which is dangerous.

However, I believe humanity has enough common sense and enough of a sense of self-preservation not to take these things to the extreme.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us go to this sector. I see the Ukrainian flag in the second row.

Vladimir Putin: You attend all our news conferences, correct? You are from Ukraine?

Dmitry Peskov: Yes, he is our colleague from Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin: Right, my colleagues told me it was better not to let him speak, because he would cause a scandal. Are you going to cause a scandal now?

Please go ahead.

Yegor Sozayev-Guryev: Yegor Sozayev-Guryev, Izvestia. My question is about the incident in the Kerch Strait.

Vladimir Putin: But Izvestia is not from Ukraine, is it?

Yegor Sozayev-Guryev: Well, my question is about Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin: Well, go ahead.

Yegor Sozayev-Guryev: I have a question about the precedent in the Kerch Strait, I wonder about the future of the captured Ukrainian military. What will happen to them? Do you think this provocation was a success?

I cannot help asking about the citizens of Russia imprisoned in the United States. I mean Butina and Yaroshenko. How can Russia protect their rights? Perhaps, we should look at our Chinese partners? A Chinese citizen representing Huawei was detained in Canada. In response, they detained several Canadian citizens. Perhaps, we could learn from that experience?

Vladimir Putin: With regard to your first question, you said: “Do you think this provocation was a success?” First, let us state that it was a provocation, and you agree with that. This is already a good start.

Now, whether it was a success or not, I believe provocations are a bad thing whatever way you look at them. Provocations seek to aggravate things. Why do our Ukrainian partners need things to go that way? Clearly, they are in the middle of an election campaign right now, and they want to aggravate the situation in order to raise the ratings of one of the contenders, I mean the incumbent president and the current government. Well, this is bad, it is ultimately bad for the interests of the Ukrainian people and state. However, it is possible to move forward without any provocations and do so calmly, as before.

Whether it was a success or not, I mean in terms of improving popularity ratings, maybe it was, as Mr Poroshenko’s ratings seem to have increased a little and he has moved from the fifth position to the second or third, where the figure fluctuates around 12 percent. Ms Tymoshenko, I believe, has 20 percent or even more, whereas Zelinsky, Boyko and Poroshenko have around 12 percent each. In this sense, yes, he probably achieved the goal. At the expense of the country’s interests, I believe. This is a bad way to boost ratings.

With regard to the future of the Ukrainian servicemen, they were sent on this mission and some of them were expected to die in the process. I can see that the leadership is very upset by the fact that no one died. They expected some of them to die. Thank God, this did not happen. An investigation is underway. Once it is over, we will know what to do with them.

Still, I will ask you to give the microphone to our colleague from Ukraine.

Roman Tsymbalyuk: Thank you. There will be no scandal. There never was a scandal actually.

Vladimir Putin: Thank God.That already is good news.

Roman Tsymbalyuk: Mr President, I would like to ask you how much money you are spending on the occupied Donbass? Under your leadership, people there are living in poverty. Let us face it, they have become slaves to Russia. You are concerned about the threat of a nuclear war and at the same time, you are preparing for a war against NATO, and, in fact, you are shooting at Ukrainian citizens. It was you as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief who issued the order to open fire at seamen. My question is what are the terms of the exchange?

And a question about the elections, if I may. You say that you analyse the approval ratings.

Vladimir Putin: Just a second. Terms of exchange?

Roman Tsymbalyuk: The terms of exchange of Ukrainian political prisoners and Ukrainian servicemen. You do need your Russian citizens back, don’t you?

And about the elections, if I may. You constantly analyse the ratings and one gets the impression that…

Vladimir Putin: I do not analyse them, I look at them inasmuch as you print them.

Roman Tsymbalyuk: … in this way you are meddling in the electoral process like you did in the United States. Doesn’t it seem to you that a direct dialogue between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia will never take place until you change your job?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the suffering of the people who live in Donbass. You are a Ukrainian citizen, aren’t you? And you consider the people who live on this territory to be the citizens of your country. Can you tell me who established the blockade between Donbass and the rest of Ukraine? Did Russia do it? The Ukrainian authorities did it: they imposed a total economic blockade of the territory they consider to be their own. They shoot at the people they consider to be their own citizens. People are killed there almost every day, peaceful civilians, by the way.

We do render humanitarian and other assistance and support to the people who live on that territory. But we do it only to prevent them from being finally crushed, devoured and torn to pieces, and we will continue doing it. Because attempts to solve these political issues by force – and we have seen this being done by the current Kiev authorities for several years – are doomed to failure. This has to be kept in mind.

Now concerning how to settle these relations and who will and will not remain in power. It is not about personalities, it is about the attitude towards people. We want to see peace and prosperity on the entire territory of Ukraine, including Donbass. We are interested in it because Ukraine remains one of our biggest trade and economic partners.

Trade between Ukraine and Russia, in spite of all the efforts of the current Kiev authorities, is growing, it has grown in the outgoing year, it has grown during the current year. Is it strange? No, it is not strange because these are natural ties. These natural ties will sooner or later make themselves felt. But as long as the Kiev corridors of power are peopled by Russophobes who do not understand the interests of their own people this abnormal situation will persist. Regardless of who is in power at the Kremlin.

We have attended to the issue of exchange all along. Mr Medvedchuk, on instructions from Poroshenko, by the way, has been constantly engaged in this. He came to Moscow just recently and raised the issue of the release of Ukrainian servicemen detained in the Kerch Strait, in the Black Sea to be more precise. Yes, Medvedchuk raised this issue. However, as I have said, these issues could only be tackled after the criminal case is closed.

Margarita Baulina: Good afternoon, colleagues, Mr President. My name is Margarita Baulina, I am from the Family, Society, Traditions publication.

Two years ago, a group of activists from my paper decided to take part in a social project to build a covered football pitch for disadvantaged children, as well as for kids from children’s homes.

For two years, we have been knocking on the doors of various committees, writing letters, holding meetings and still everybody is totally indifferent to our cause. I do not want to speak ill of my colleagues from other professional fields, but we are treated like we want to open a flower shop or a gas station, and nobody pays attention to the fact that we want to help the state perform its functions and carry out an important mission.

Vladimir Putin: Sorry, I did not understand you: what are you trying to do?

Margarita Baulina: We are trying to open a covered football pitch for disadvantaged children and children from children’s homes, to give them an opportunity to fulfil themselves for free, to find their true identity not in the streets through some harmful activities.

Vladimir Putin: Do you have a non-governmental non-profit organisation established, or what?

Margarita Baulina: We are registered as a limited liability company on the base of our publication.

Margarita Baulina: We are trying to address this issue with several committees in out city, such as the Property Committee, Sports Committee and the Committee for Youth and Social Policy. And each time we go from one committee to another, and exchange letters with them, etc.

Vladimir Putin: How much does your project cost?

Margarita Baulina: At the moment we need 11 million rubles.

Vladimir Putin: What was your city again?

Margarita Baulina: St Petersburg.

Vladimir Putin: I will speak with the Acting Governor. I am sure we can solve this problem.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you and the same to you. I feel that you are quite closely connected to this sphere…

Intelligence, counterintelligence and information work are all the same. At the end of the day, they are all about information: you work with information, and so do the special services.

Kseniya Golovanova: Russian society, especially its younger part, have recently witnessed strange actions by the authorities that I believe can cause unnecessary conflict. One example is the case of the rappers – I think you are already familiar with this word. They come under pressure, with crackdowns on their concerts.

Vladimir Putin: Are you questioning my competency?

Kseniya Golovanova: Not at all.

Vladimir Putin: You said, “I think you are already familiar with this word.” Well, I knew it even before.

Kseniya Golovanova: Well, you tend to use it more often now.

Vladimir Putin: There were rappers among my authorised representatives. Take Timati, for example. Just look at this spectacular guy. By the way, he is a wonderful person and a brilliant artist.

Kseniya Golovanova: During the meeting of the Council for Culture, you said that if you cannot rein in a movement, you have to become its leader. Could you tell me why the state has to have a role in all this? Why not just leave it alone? Why did the people have to be dispersed? Who needed it? So they use obscene language in their songs – let them be.

There is a second question I wanted to ask that also deals with young people. A lot of people have recently voiced their misgivings over a legislative initiative on introducing tighter responsibility for negative statements regarding the state and authorities. This will also primarily target young people on social media. Aren’t you afraid that these initiatives could cost you their support?

Vladimir Putin: Let me start with the question on alienating young people or attracting them.

You know, in any discussion about the youth, I always remember ceratin tragic and heroic chapters from our recent past. Do you remember the airborne squadron of 96 young lads, 19 or 20 years old, who found themselves in the Armed Forces almost immediately after graduating from school? These 96 soldiers fought against 2,000. Only six survived. They fought for almost three days, at times fighting at close quarters, with shovels and knives. They are heroes, and they were young, 19 or 20 years old (Applause).

Take volunteers, for example. There are thousands and thousands of them. I think that as many as 35,000 worked at the World Cup. And what about those involved in battlefield archaeology? There are thousands of them as well. They are all young people.

People of this kind form a very substantial social stratum, a large social group. They are all young, they are the foundation of Russia’s present and future. There are also young researchers, talented artists and musicians, including rappers.

As for responsibility for desecration of the flag or other state symbols, it exists in almost every country. People must respect their country. There are rules that must be respected everywhere. If there is responsibility offline, it must also exist online.

In what way does online behaviour differ from offline activity? After all, these are still social interactions, especially since the internet has penetrated all areas of our lives. For this reason, there is nothing extraordinary about it.

As for these rappers being detained, I agree with you. This does not make any sense and brings about the opposite effect to what was intended, leading nowhere. That being said, there is nothing good in what you said about letting people use obscene language and not paying attention to it.

Recently, as you must have seen, I attended Yury Temirkanov’s birthday celebration; he turned 80. He said something very common and still absolutely correct: “Art does not exist to indulge base motives, base interests and low cultural profile. Culture is there to raise the level of those things.”

Of course, this is not something people should be caught, restricted or punished for. This would be wrong. But there are other things. For example, remember, I did not know it was broadcast live, where I told my interlocutor: “Let us all use foul language here at the Council on Culture meeting.” Everyone laughed. Why? It never occurs to anyone to do this. Why should we condone it? No, we should not do this.

But there are other elements. For example, drug propaganda. Do we want our young people to use drugs? Why should we condone the promotion of drug use? This is a degradation of society, a degradation of young people, and a degradation of the nation.

Do we want to degenerate? Someone wants to promote drugs – so let them. But we should not do this, and in no way should we encourage it, and we should not turn a blind eye either. Only, we need a different way of dealing with these trends.

Another example: it has become trendy to promote suicide among young people. So what do you say, let’s go now and hang ourselves, or what? Then you go first, not me. You do not want to, right? This cannot be allowed in the youth environment. That is what I said – you take the lead.

This is different from catching, restricting or telling someone to ”do as I do.“ No, this is not aviation. Here you have to act differently. Are there any different methods? Of course there are. We need to carefully and calmly build our case, convince people of the greater appeal of other values. But you cannot ban it outright, I agree with you.

Dmitry Peskov: Are there, in addition to the Ukrainian media, media representatives from other countries as well? Our Japanese colleagues from Kyodo Tsushin in the middle of this centre section, please, take the floor. Please, pass the microphone there.

Hirofumi Sugizaki: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Hirofumi Sugizaki: Hirofumi Sugizaki,Kyodo Tsushin, Japan.

It is natural that my question is, unfortunately, about the peace treaty that, as I understand, our countries are seeking to sign. After your meeting with Mr Shinzo Abe in Singapore, where you agreed to push the negotiating process forward on the basis of the Soviet-Japanese Declaration of 1956, our public’s only concern is about how many islands we are going to get: nil, two, three or four – we do not know. On the other hand, as I understand, the Russians are also puzzled, as they mainly ask questions like, “Why should we return them?” Some people even approach us with a threat: “We will not yield an inch of our land.” And so on. The question is about the delimitation that we must carry out. But if our new treaty – a peace treaty – is confined to the delimitation of borders, this will not be enough and will not be interesting to our nations, and people will not understand this. What new idea do you think should be embedded in a treaty to bring our relations to a new level?

There is another question that I cannot fail to ask in connection with the above. Russia – and you yourself – has brought up security issues recently, I mean the deployment of the US missile defence system in Japan and the possibility of deploying American troops and military infrastructure on the islands should they be transferred to Japan. We are holding negotiations at an expert level, but in military matters Japan almost fully depends on the US. Do you think these issues can be resolved on a bilateral basis, or will you have to deal directly with the US? Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Let us talk about the final part of your question so that we do not forget what you said. The issues of security are crucially important, including when signing a peace treaty. You spoke about the deployment of the US military infrastructure in Japan, but it is already there, the largest US base is in Okinawa, it has been there for decades, as we know.

Now, about Japan’s ability to take part in this decision-making. To us, this is an unclear, closed issue. We do not understand the level of Japan’s sovereignty in making such decisions. You know better than all other colleagues, and I know too that the Okinawa Governor is opposed to some decisions related to improving and expanding the base. He is against it, but he cannot do anything about it. People who live there are also against it.

There is a lot of evidence of that; there have been opinion polls and protests demanding the withdrawal of this base. And, in any case, they are opposed to strengthening the US Air Force part of the base that is there. There are plans to improve and expand it, and it is happening despite the fact that everybody is against it.

We do not know what will happen after the peace treaty is concluded, but without an answer to this question it will be very difficult to make any crucial decisions. And, of course, we are concerned about the plans to place ABM systems there. I told the United States this many times and I will repeat again that we do not consider this to be defensive weapons; this is part of the US strategic nuclear potential placed outside. And these systems, they are synchronised with the missile strike systems.

So there are no illusions and we understand everything. But nevertheless we are sincerely striving and will strive to sign a peace treaty with Japan. It is because I am confident, and Prime Minister Abe shares my confidence, that the current state of affairs is not normal. Both Japan and Russia are interested in a complete settlement of our relations, and it is not only because we need something from Japan in terms of the economy. Our economy is more or less developing.

Just this morning, Economic Development Minister Maxim Oreshkin reported on his trip to Japan. There is some progress, including an agreement on deliveries, on opening the Japanese market to Russian meat and poultry products. There are other improvements as well. Therefore, we are moving forward, and will continue to move forward, as it will be necessary. But the normalisation is important to us, both for Russia and Japan. It is a difficult process, but we are ready to move forward together with our colleagues.

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you. As you may know, British media regulator Ofcom has just found RT guilty of violating broadcasting regulations and is looking into the possibility of introducing sanctions against it. I saw an RT correspondent somewhere here. Let us give him the floor, as he is the main source of such information.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.

Ilya Petrenko: Thank you, Mr Peskov.

Good afternoon. My name isIlya Petrenko from the Russia Today television channel.

But I have a different question. First, I would like to inquire about a recent decision to simplify procedures for the people of Ukraine to obtain Russian citizenship. Our channel often dealt with this issue, as well as with bureaucracy. It goes without saying that this is an important step, but I would like to ask you to explain the logic of this from a purely political standpoint. If this is so essential, and if this is needed to help people in eastern Ukraine, why didn’t we do it earlier? Are you not afraid that bureaucracy will persist, and that papers will, from now on, be placed to the left, rather than the right?

I would also like to come back to the question from my Izvestia colleague. There is the Skripal scandal and the Western response to it. Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi Arabian journalist, was murdered, and this incident caused an entirely different response. Kirill Vyshinsky and Maria Butina, as well as Huawei Chief Financial Officer were arrested. And Donald Trump is saying openly that sheis a bargaining chip in a trade war. My colleague wanted to know if we would ever see this happening in Russia, when foreign citizens would be arrested under far-fetched pretexts and exchanged for someone else. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Let us start with the last part of your question. I do not want to comment on US-Chinese relations, who arrested whom and for what actions, etc. This is a very sensitive area, and we will not act according to the laws of the Code of Hammurabi here. The law of retaliation states, “An eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth.” We need to act very cautiously here, and we need to be real. We will respond if certain people violate Russian legislation, regardless of their national and state affiliation. But we will not arrest innocent people simply to exchange them for someone else later on.

As for the fate of Russian nationals, we do care about them, including the fact that Butina is being forced to admit something over there. I cannot understand what she could possibly have admitted, since she was not following any instructions from the Russian Government or its agencies. I am saying this because I mean it, no matter what she says under the threat of being sentenced to 12 or 15 years in prison. It is understandable that together with her lawyer she is fighting to get out of prison. I do not quite understand why they put her there in the first place. There were simply no grounds for it. But now this is a question of saving face for them and finding a way out. I am primarily referring to the US justice system. We will see how it plays out. We do care, and we will keep an eye on this case and provide our support accordingly.

As for the Skripals and Khashoggi, no comment is required. Khashoggi was obviously murdered, and everyone acknowledged it. Skripal is alive, thank Heaven. Nevertheless, Russia was slapped with a salvo of sanctions in this connection, with no end in sight, which contrasts with complete silence in the second case. This is a politically-driven, Rusophobic approach. It serves as a pretext for attacking Russia once more. Without the Skripal case, they would have come up with something else. This is quite obvious to me. Their only goal is to contain Russia and prevent it from emerging as a potential competitor. I do not see any other end to it.

Regarding red tape on citizenship matters. You said “red tape.” How so? Red tape is perennial. You cannot defeat it. At the same time, you cannot live without it either, and this has to be said as well. It is true that there must be rules for this bureaucracy and governance mechanisms, etc.

Regarding naturalisation, this does not have to do only with what is taking place in southeastern Ukraine. Our initiatives do not target exclusively people living in these territories. The Government is currently working on amendments to the relevant law on citizenship and naturalisation. What for? These efforts are designed to show that we do not seek and will not support policies of division or the ones designed to alienate the peoples of Russia and Ukraine. What are the current [Ukrainian] authorities doing? What is their mission? What are they trying to achieve on the back of Russophobia they are promoting? They are practically admitting that they are pursuing a historic task of separating the peoples of Russia and Ukraine. This is what they are up to. And for that, they can get away with anything.

Your colleague from the Ukrainian media talked about the challenges faced by people living in Donbass and the Lugansk Region, and their poor living standards. But is it any better in Ukraine? The situation is quite similar compared to Donbass, and it is getting worse all the time. Anything can be forgiven within the country, and even more so outside it against the backdrop of war, hostilities and tensions. And they are getting paid for this. They are about to receive another IMF tranche. We do understand what this is all about: just enough to pay out pensions and salaries to social sector employees, and the future generations will have to foot the bill. For this reason the overall situation is quite unfavourable. I believe this to be the case for the economy, society and domestic political processes. But our nations are very close and share the same history, so we will do everything to move in this direction.

The law on citizenship is currently being amended, and it will be adopted in early 2019.

Yury Abumov: Yury Abumov, Khakassia newspaper.

Mr President, I would like to ask about the latest regional elections. It is no secret that in some regions, they were quite turbulent and tense, and sometimes even long, like in Primorye, where they have just ended, and Khakassia actually set a record of holding elections that went on for two whole months.

But the most important thing is that, as a result of the protest vote, opposition parties’ candidates won. In particular, a candidate from the Communist Party won in Khakassia, and candidates from LDPR won in Khabarovsk and in Vladimir Region. This raises some questions.

First, why do you think this happened? Second, why, contrary to the tradition you established, have you not met with the elected regional heads yet? And most importantly, how do you intend to build relations with the regions where the opposition parties won? Because there are concerns that the federal Government may cut their funding and support – there are such fears.

Vladimir Putin: Do not worry about it. It is strange that this question even occurred.

About the meetings. The elections in Vladivostok were held just last Sunday, and that is why there were no meetings. They will be, and they are scheduled for next week, I believe. We will have the State Council meeting, and, I have already instructed the Executive Office to schedule a separate meeting with the newly elected heads of the regions you have just mentioned. We had to wait for the voting results in Vladivostok. This is the first point.

Second. This is not the first time that representatives of opposition parties win elections, is it? For several years now, an LDPR representative has been heading Smolensk; in Omsk, there is someone from United Russia, I think, and in other regions, there are representatives of the Communist Party. So what? They are working; everything is fine.

I am not a member of any party. True, I created the United Russia, but the President is not a member of any party. And the main thing for me is that people in the cities and regions of the Russian Federation feel that life is changing for the better.

In fact, if they cast their vote for a specific person who does not represent the United Russia party, that is their choice. I will help in every way any elected leader of the region.

The only question is that the newly elected heads of regions themselves should rise to the challenge, should be able to fulfil the electoral promises they made to the people.

Yelena Glushakova: My name is Yelena Glushakova, and I am from RIA Novosti.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Yelena Glushakova: I have also brought a picture, Masha and the Bear, that relates to the topic of my question. As my colleagues have said, Russia has been living under a huge amount of the most varied sanctions for the past few years. It can be hard to keep track at times, and, in some cases, they are vowing to introduce sanctions against cartoon characters.

But this is beside the point. My question is more serious. They are planning to introduce even more serious sanctions; for example, US lawmakers are preparing for this. And is Russia prepared for a new round of sanctions escalation? Does the Government have any plan for minimising their impact on the Russian economy? And what do you think the impact is, all the more so given the widely differing views expressed on it?

Vladimir Putin: Well, we have discussed sanctions many times. If you want to discuss this issue once again, that is okay with me.

Throughout virtually its entire history, Russia has faced various restrictions and sanctions. Really its entire history.

If you look at the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, you will see that the situation is always the same. You can read diplomatic correspondence dating to the 19th century and the early 20th century. Everything is the same. They urged Russian diplomats to quickly establish order in the Caucasus and to do many other things. Nothing changes.

How can this be explained? I have already discussed this, and I hope that an overwhelming majority of today’s audience also realises that it is related to Russia’s growing might and its greater competitiveness. A mighty and powerful player is emerging, one that has to be reckoned with, even if others would rather not.

Quite recently, they believed that a country like that no longer existed, but it turns out it does and it must be reckoned with. Our country has a population of 160 million. This is not just some wishful thinking on the part of its leaders, it represents the interests of the people that we are defending. By the way, we are carefully defending these interests with calm and restraint, nothing boorish. But we are going about our business, and we will continue to move in this direction.

Speaking of present-day sanctions, they have just mentioned the Skripals and Khashoggi incidents. So, is there any logic here? No, there is none. This is just a pretext for taking additional action to contain Russia.

Our economy, as it has been said many times, has adapted to these external restrictions. Look, in the beginning of this meeting I mentioned that after the 2008−2009 global crisis, our GDP dropped by 7.8 percent. There were no sanctions at the time. After the sanctions were imposed in 2014, the drop was 2.5 percent.

You asked how we assess this situation? We always assess it in our favour. But let us look at how our opponents see it – those who impose the sanctions. For example, the US Treasury Department believes that this 2.5-percent drop in 2015 was one-third due to the sanctions and two-thirds due to the collapsed prices on energy sources, mainly, oil. In fact, I think that one-third is too much. But all, right, they did affect our GDP.

The sanctions also affect those who introduced them. According to the European Parliament, the European economy lost around 500 billion euros due to the sanctions against Russia because they lost our market, they under-export and they under-import certain goods from us. The number of jobs has dropped.

It is significant for them because many EU countries suffer from a very high unemployment rate. In Spain, if I am not mistaken, it is still around 15 percent. We have 4.8 percent and they have 15 percent, you know. And the development of global trade, which lost over 400 billion, is also a result of such an unpredictable policy, including sanctions. This policy is harmful to everybody.

I will repeat once again, our economy has adapted to this. Yes, there are some adverse effects but look, there are also positive sides to these sanctions. What are they? The sanctions made us switch on our brains in many areas and Western experts also acknowledge this. The share of Russian transport machine building was 98 percent in 2017. Automobile production accounted for 85 percent. Several other industries, also key areas, accounted for around 80 percent.

This year, we spent 600 billion rubles on import substitution, including 125 to 128 billion from the federal budget. I will not even mention agriculture. We had to compensate for the imports in the market. Yes, unfortunately, this resulted in a short-term price increase in the domestic food market but right now, the prices have stabilised to a large extent in this sector of the economy and agriculture has made a breakthrough that we could not have ever imagined.

Since 2000, the amount of exports has increased 16-fold, which is just unbelievable except it is actually happening. There are negative and positive sides but in any case, we would like the world economy to develop without any shocks, unlawful measures or external restrictions, to develop naturally, for its own benefit.

Vladimir Putin: Wait a second. I see a poster saying ‘KGB and children.’ Today is December 20, the day of the Cheka. What do you mean, there are children in the KGB? What is it? Please, hand them a microphone.

Remark: As my good friend said once, “We all are the children of the KGB, but life has taught us different things.”

Vladimir Putin: If you are the children of the KGB, why does life teach you? The KGB should do that.

Question: Mr President, society strongly demands social justice. According to Levada Centre, 66 percent of respondents feel nostalgic about the Soviet Union. And here is my question: do you think that a restoration of socialism is possible in Russia?

Vladimir Putin: I think this is impossible.

I believe that the deep changes that have taken place in our society make restoring socialism in the sense you mean impossible.

There can be social elements in the economy and the social sector, but expenses will always exceed profits, and as a result, the economy would be at a dead end.

But the just distribution of resources, the fair treatment of people who live below the poverty line, and a state policy aimed to lower the number of people who have to live like that, to provide the majority of people with healthcare services and education in acceptable conditions, if this is the socialism we are talking about, we are holding to the very same policy. Our national programmes that we talked about in the beginning of this meeting, are mostly aimed at all this.

Dmitry Peskov: If it is not about the KGB then please go ahead. You are from Chelyabinsk, aren’t you?

Yana Skonechnaya: Thank you.

My name is Yana Skonechnaya, I represent the Southern Urals State Television and Radio Company, the city of Chelyabinsk.

I have a question that concerns not only Chelyabinsk, but all of Russia. I am talking about waste management, waste sorting, in particular. Not a single city in our country has either the industry for separate trash collection, or a culture of waste sorting. I have a colleague who does separate trash collection, but her entire apartment is filled with trash bags, because she needs to collect a certain amount of it, then load it into her car, take it to the other end of the city and only then dispose of it. Of course, some regions have already begun building the appropriate infrastructure, but this is all a drop in the ocean. You raised this issue on many occasions. So why is it so hard to make it happen? Why can we not use international experience and have our waste properly recycled?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, the answer is fairly simple. The situation is complicated, but the answer is simple – we have never dealt with it. For decades, since Soviet times, we have been dumping garbage in pits, to put it colorfully. No one has ever engaged in its processing, unless minimally in certain areas, while we produce, I believe, 70 million tonnes of trash annually, and there is no place to dispose of it. The amount of waste tends to increase with the development of industry, including the development of the consumer goods industry. As chemistry progresses, the amount of plastic trash increases. In the Pacific, there are entire islands of it the size of France and several metres thick. Plastic tends to accumulate in these spots and there is nothing you can do about it. However, this is the Pacific, while we dump it all in landfills.

We need to address several key and top priorities. First, we need to eliminate illegal landfills. Second, we should create a waste treatment industry. What your colleague is doing is great, and is highly commendable, but this is a problem for environmentally conscious people. The state, first of all the regions, and then the municipalities, should create conditions for separate trash collection and subsequent recycling. I understand the people who oppose the construction of waste disposal plants. You have just mentioned international best practices. It is necessary to use them in our country. We often manage to do so. Here, we need to do the same. Some environmentalists and even some citizens object to building even waste incineration plants in the regions. These plants need to be of high quality and efficient, so as not to have to scrimp on the filters for them. They are the most expensive part of the processing and incineration plants. Everything has be done according to the corresponding technology and methodology.

In Tokyo (as our colleague will confirm, I think), waste incineration plants are located in central parts of the city. There is no smell, no problems whatsoever, because the process is adhered to. We need to do the same. We must build 200 waste treatment plants before 2024. I am not sure this will be enough, but we must have at least 200 such plants in our country.

Alexander Ilyin: Alexander Ilyin, Yakutia newspaper.

Mr President, my question is this. The Crimean Bridge has become a symbol of Crimea’s return to its homeland. The bridge over the Lena River can become a symbol of the development of Russia’s Asian part. I would like to ask you, should we expect this bridge to be built? If so, when? Because the Yakut people really need it. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I see. A symbol is always good; it is always a landmark of some stage of work that has been completed and a springboard for further progress. In this sense, the Crimean Bridge is both. I agree with you: it is both a symbol of Crimea’s reunification with Russia, and an opportunity for the peninsula’s development. It opens opportunities for development. It is very important.

The same applies to the bridge across the Lena River. You said it has to spur development. This needs to be calculated carefully. The cost of this project – and we have been talking about it for a long time, for several years – is very high. It is an expensive project. We need to look if it will simply stop at the city and that is it, or if there is a possibility of developing the region as a whole, the area on the other side of the Lena River: the local economy, infrastructure, access to mineral deposits. Here is what we need to decide. We need to match the costs against the end result for the economy of the region as a whole. If our colleagues at the Transport Ministry and the Economic Development Ministry agree, then of course we will implement this project.

Vladimir Putin: Let us go on. Nature, Motherland, people.

Remark:(From the audience.) We will soon run out of gas.

Vladimir Putin: We will talk about gas in a moment. We will not run out of gas. We have more gas than the rest of the world. We have 67 trillion cubic metres in Yamal alone.

Go ahead, please.

Sergei Lisovsky: Mr President,

Thank you for the opportunity to ask you a question. Sergei Lisovsky, editor-in-chief of Society and the Environmentnewspaper. I have been publishing it in St Petersburg for 19 years now. Next year it will turn 20 – the oldest environmental newspaper in Russia, steadily published. Small but steady.

Vladimir Putin: We will celebrate.

Sergei Lisovsky: That is what I wanted to say, before asking a serious question, I would like to invite you to St Petersburg to attend a roundtable discussion on Russia’s development strategy, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Society and the Environment.

My question is as follows. We are working on the protection of the Neva River, the protection of forests, water resources, the protection of the Don River… And thank you so much for issuing instructions at the Russian Popular Front’s media forum on April 23 to report to you on the construction of the Bagayevsky hydroelectric dam, this dangerous facility the local residents are opposing.

Mr Kiriyenko at the RPF congress told me that your instructions remain in force. But local officials are reluctant to comply with them. Therefore, I would like to ask you to pay attention to the Don River – this is as great a Russian river as the Volga and the Neva. This is my first point.

And second, Mr President.

On December 15, you chaired a meeting of the Council for Culture [and Art] at the Constantine Palace. All the questions asked there were very good and correct, including about drug addiction. But Andrei Mikhalkov-Konchalovsky asked one of the key questions, and I would like to follow up on this issue after thinking it over.

He said that Russia now lacks an ambitious national development idea. The Russian Empire had the following triad: Orthodox Christianity, autocracy and nationality. The Soviet Union had the moral code of the builder of communism. Today, it is unclear what kind of society we are building, but it looks more like the amoral code of the builder of capitalism.

I came up with a triad of my own, and I would like to ask you to get our federal television channels, including Channel One, NTV and Rossiya, to hold a nationwide discussion of what kind of country and society we are building, after all. So, I suggest the following triad: nature, motherland and the people. Its three component – nature, motherland and the people – cannot exist without one another. And that is why we now watch shows about who left whom and who cheated on whom. That is, there is a kind of media lawlessness. And if we raise the issue of all television shows …

Dmitry Peskov: What is your question, please?

Sergey Lisovsky: Yes, is it possible to create a television show on strategically important issues related to Russia’s long-term development?

Vladimir Putin: It is always very interesting to speak with Andrei Mikhalkov-Konchalovsky. He is very insightful. He has his own opinions, which he is not afraid to express, whether you agree or not. He is not a conformist, and he speaks his mind. He is an insightful person.

I have repeatedly discussed whether we have an idea for building the state, the country – the foundation on which to build. I believe that patriotism in the best sense of the word, rather than the basest, simply has to be the foundation for strengthening our state in the broadest and noblest sense of this word.

As for our many channels on television and online that probably are not worth the air time they take up, you know, Daniil Granin (I believe that I mentioned this some time ago) discussed the matter at our last meeting.

We had a long private conversation, and I never saw him again, he passed away some time later. He said: “Look, you have to do something about this.” I asked: “What are you talking about?” “We are all tired of it,” he replied. “What do you mean?” I asked. “All the television channels are telling us about people who stole money, how much, how they did it. I am really sick and tired of it. Are there really no happy and positive events in life here?” I said: “Well, that is their programming choice.”

As I see it, things are actually gradually changing for the better, to some extent, the information is becoming more balanced perhaps, although I don’t go online or watch television very often just because I don’t have enough time.

I try to keep an eye on the media environment, and I get the impression that there has been some improvement. But there would certainly be no harm in discussing what you have suggested. I will need to speak with my colleagues.

They can hear you now, and I hope that they will respond.

The Chicago Tribune’s correspondent over there, you have the floor, please.

Rachel Marsden: President Putin, Rachel Marsden with the Tribune Publishing out of Chicago, United States.

Yesterday, President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of the American troops from Syria. He also announced that, in his opinion, the United States defeated ISIS in Syria, he made that very clear.

What is your position with respect to his statements, both on the withdrawal of the American troops from Syria and also with his statement regarding the defeat of ISIS by the United States?

And, secondly, do you have concern that the American troops will remain in some form? There has been much discussion, for example, around the presence, potentially, of contractors in other jurisdictions where the United States is either out of militarily or might want to be out of militarily but in a more discreet way.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: As concerns the defeat of ISIS, overall I agree with the President of the United States. I already said that we achieved significant progress in the fight against terrorism in that territory and delivered major strikes on ISIS in Syria.

There is a risk of these and similar groups migrating to neighbouring regions and Afghanistan, to other countries, to their home countries, and they are partly returning.

It is a great danger for all of us, including Russia, the United States, Europe, Asian countries, including Central Asia. We know that, we understand the risk fully. Donald is right about that, and I agree with him.

As concerns the withdrawal of American troops, I do not know what that is. The United States have been present in, say, Afghanistan, for how long? Seventeen years, and every year they talk about withdrawing the troops. But they are still there. This is my second point.

Third. So far, we have not seen any evidence of their withdrawal but I suppose it is possible, the more so because we are progressing towards a political settlement. The current issue on the agenda is building a constitutional committee.

By the way, when we met in Istanbul – I mean Russia, Turkey, France and Germany – we agreed to make every possible effort to create this constitutional committee and Russia, for its part, has done everything in its power for this to happen.

As strange as it may seem, we fully agreed on the list of members with President al-Assad, who designated 50 people and was involved in selecting 50 more from civil society. Despite the fact that he is not happy with everything, he agreed with this.

Turkey, which represents the interests of the opposition, also agreed. Iran agreed. We submitted the list to the UN and, as Minister Lavrov reported to me just yesterday, unexpectedly, prompted by our partners – Germany, France and the United States – UN representatives (Mr de Mistura) decided to wait and see.

I do not understand what is going on there but at any rate, I want to believe that this work is in its final stage. Maybe not by the end of this year but in the beginning of the next the list will be agreed and this will open the next stage of the settlement, which will be political settlement.

Is the presence of American troops required there? I do not think it is. However, let us not forget that their presence, the presence of your troops, is illegitimate as it was not approved by a UN Security Council resolution. The military contingent can only be there under a resolution of the UN Security Council or at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian Government. Russian troops were invited by the Syrian Government. The United States did not get either of these so if they decide to withdraw their troops, it is the right decision.

There is another very important component in this process. Despite all the disagreements, our specialists, our military personnel, security services and foreign ministries have established a rather constructive dialogue to address acute issues in combating terrorism in Syria. Overall, we are satisfied with our cooperation.

Remark: (From the audience) You will not forget about Gazprom, will you?

Vladimir Putin: How can I forget about Gazprom? Just a second.

Olga Ivanova: Good afternoon. My name is Olga, I represent the Selskaya Zhisn (Rural Life) newspaper. It marked its 100th anniversary last March. You congratulated our editorial board, and we are very thankful for that.

Here is my question. Judging by the current statistics, the growth rate of the agricultural sector has slowed down despite the absence of competition because of the sanctions and the terrific environment. How can you explain that? And does that bother you?

And another one: there are no national projects for agriculture, why is that?

Vladimir Putin: As for national projects and agriculture, agriculture has long been a national project in Russia. It receives state support worth hundreds of billions of rubles, and it will keep receiving it, both large and small farms, all segments of the sector.

As for the low growth rate. Yes, it is true. Are we worried? No. And the environment is far from being terrific, our agricultural producers work in difficult conditions.

First, there is still competition. Thank God, competition is developing inside the country, and this is very important for the development of this sector of the economy. There is also foreign competition. Not all countries imposed sanctions, which means we did not take counter-measures against them. We introduced such measures against the EU countries, the US and other countries that imposed sanctions against Russia at the instruction of the US. But the majority of countries in the world did not, and there are many of them. They supply us with their products and therefore there is competition.

Speaking of what is going on in agriculture, these are statistics and they relate to grain production. As you know, last year we had a record-breaking grain harvest of 135.5 million tonnes. This is the main factor influencing the statistics. This year, due to unfavourable weather conditions – and in 27 regions a state of emergency was declared – the harvest was smaller: 110.5 million tonnes. Therefore, as compared to last year, there is a decline. However, these 110 million tonnes rank third in terms of production volume in the past 25 years. It is a very good result. Combined with the reserves from last year, potential exports grew to 52.5 million tonnes. We will fulfil all obligations and contracts. So we are not worried at all.

In the agricultural sector, there are areas where we need to act and maintain our efforts. What are these areas? We need to improve our competitiveness, and expand the infrastructure, in order to boost exports, among other things. Incidentally, last year exports totalled 20 billion, and this year they will reach 25 billion. There was a time when these figures were hard to imagine. Russia exports 16 billion worth of arms, while agricultural exports are at 25 billion. We will continue to support agricultural and export infrastructure development; about 400 billion rubles will go toward these ends over the next few years. This includes developing ports, roads and so forth, and supporting exports with financial instruments. This is how we can enhance our competitiveness. Of course, professional training, selection breeding, etc. are also important. You know this better than I do.

Second, we need to promote high value-added production, including meat and meat processing.

For course, we also need to address matters related to the social development of rural areas. This programme will remain in place.

Artyom Artemenko: Mr President, you recently said that the restrictions Russia is facing from some countries have a direct bearing on the people living in Crimea who voted for reunification with Russia in 2014. Can you explain what you meant? How do we deal with this? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I did say this, even though I can hardly recall where I was at the time, but I can explain it. This is an interesting situation. What we hear from the outside is that Russia annexed Crimea. But what does annexation mean? It means a forcible takeover. If this had been an annexation and a takeover by force, the people in Crimea would have had nothing to do with it and would not be to blame. But if they came out and voted, this was not an annexation. So what is going on? After all, sanctions were imposed against them, against you. What are these sanctions? Restriction on mobility, restrictions on border crossings, visas, financial transactions, insurance companies, marine infrastructure use and the use of other facilities. These measures affect almost everyone living there. They were the ones targeted by these sanctions, and this is not just about singling out specific individuals like the government leaders in the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, but about targeting everyone. If they had had nothing to do with it, if it had been annexation, why were the people sanctioned? But if you were sanctioned for taking part in a specific vote, then they would have to admit that it actually took place. This is what this is about, and this is what I meant.

Mr President, there is a state programme for supporting positive content in cinema and television, which is, in fact, funded with our taxes. Are such support measures possible and necessary for the Russian segment of the internet?

And the state channels will not ask: when are you getting married? And to whom? (Laughter.)

Vladimir Putin: These are two completely different questions.

Are you married?

Alexander Yunashev: Yes, I am, and I have no regrets about it. I can recommend it.

Vladimir Putin: He is married, and wants me to be in the same boat. (Laughter.) Well, all right. Let us assume that I answered your second question, although as a gentleman I will probably have to do so at some point. (Laughter.)

Now, with regard to supporting the Russian segment of the internet. Yes, it is the right thing to do, and we are already doing so. We have grants, I am not sure about the exact amounts, but they are measured in hundreds of millions of rubles. These grants are related to content, and we are allocating, I believe, 144 billion rubles to this end. Overall, we officially allocate about 400 million rubles for this type of activity, so we are doing this and will continue to do so.

Let us continue with the Eurasian Women’s Community. It is an important follow-up to the question of marriage. Please go ahead.

Marina Volynkina: Eurasian Women’s Community, Marina Volynkina.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank you for attending the Second Eurasian Women’s Forum. It was important for the women of the world.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Marina Volynkina: There was a panel dedicated to the media at that forum. After we conducted this panel, 15 memorandums on peace were signed by the participants about responsible media which joined our campaign and which support the idea that information in the world should be positive.

In this regard, I have a question for you: how important is it for you, as President, that all the journalists present here not just tell the truth, but also do their job objectively and responsibly, so that they act as a serious soft power, and not just as a medium to resolve certain business problems.

Today, for us, women, it is very important, amid aggression and tensions – and we are really afraid of war – for the soft power to work. Is there soft power in Russia and what is the role of responsible journalism?

Vladimir Putin: You know, the truth is not in power …

Marina Volynkina: The power is in the truth.

Vladimir Putin: The power is in the truth, that’s right. This formula includes what the media are all about. The power is in the truth, and this is the only way that the media can win the trust of millions of people.

Unfortunately, let us face it – our life is very much commercialised just as in the past in the Soviet era everything was politicised, which undermines media credibility with many people.

People are dividing everything they see or read by 100 or 1,000. Still, we must strive for this. Clearly, we must strive to be as objective as possible in matters that are vital for our country and the rest of the world.

This is important not just for me, but for all of us. I hope that this trend is still there, and I think it will continue.

Let us have the question about Afghanistan, as I promised.

Question: On December 6, Russia refused to support a UN General Assembly resolution on Afghanistan because of its disagreement with the position of some Western countries.

Vladimir Putin: Because of what?

Remark: Because of its disagreement with the position of some Western countries.

Vladimir Putin: What was that resolution about? Can you remind me, please?

Remark: Western countries.

They said the situation in Afghanistan was good, while Russia believed that…

Vladimir Putin: We believe that it is not good. What do you think about this?

Remark: I would like to know what you think.

Vladimir Putin: Do you want my opinion?

Question: At the same time, the US is conducting separate talks with the Taliban. In light of this, what will be the future of the Moscow format of consultations on Afghanistan, which were attended by delegates from 11 countries?

Vladimir Putin: The Moscow format?

Remark: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: To be honest, I do not recall the details of that draft resolution. But I think you will agree with me, and I am sure that the majority of those who live in Afghanistan will agree with me.

I do not know what our Western partners wanted to achieve with that resolution. If they wanted to declare that everything is fine there, this has little to do with reality.

What part of the country does the Kabul government control officially? Not more than one third, to be perfectly frank; do you agree? When elections are held, it takes months to add up the results. Is this how it should be? So what is there to approve of?

Talks are underway with the Taliban. This is probably unavoidable. But we must understand the subject of these talks and their possible outcome. If there is a force that controls the bulk of Afghanistan’s territory, its opinion must be taken into account, but this should be done openly and publicly, so it is clear what we are talking about.

I believe that this is probably the essence of our Foreign Ministry’s position at the talks. We are not against a settlement. Overall, we believe that the problem can be settled exclusively through an agreement between all parties to the political process in Afghanistan.

Until then, we will need to reinforce our military base in Tajikistan. We believe that the people of Afghanistan will eventually reach an agreement, and that all political forces and ethnic groups will reach a consensus.

We will facilitate this process as much as we can, including by promoting economic cooperation with Afghanistan and by taking part in various international projects, such as the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline [gas trunk line], TAPI.

Vladimir Putin: You have not been called on for four years in a row. How can this be? Go ahead. It is [Dmitry] Peskov’s fault. We will punish him.

(Addressing Andrei Kolesnikov.) Andrei, please, let the young lady speak first. She has not been called on for four years in a row.

Remark: It is seven years for us.

Anna Vavilova-Dollezhal: Thank you very much for sparing me having to wait another year.

After the law on foreign agents was passed, there was an enormous uproar over human rights being violated and so on.

Vladimir Putin: One of my colleagues – I will not give his name – was asked during talks: “What is the situation with human rights in your country?” [Allusion to a Soviet-era joke.] He looked at his interlocutor and asked: “Who is the human being you are talking about?” I would like to ask you: who is the human being you are referring to?

Anna Vavilova-Dollezhal: In our country this primarily applies to legal entities, while Maria Butina was arrested in the United States as a private individual. This law [on foreign agents] has been in effect in the US since 1938. I would like to ask you if it makes sense to borrow from the experience of our Western partners here.

I have another question that is very important to us. I represent Tsargrad TV channel and we want to know what you think about the situation developing around Orthodoxy globally, given recent sectarian activities by the Patriarchate of Constantinople and Kiev. Perhaps, everyone is now beginning to realise that the United States is the main player here. So it turns out that religion is heavily dominated by geopolitics. Is that the case?

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the first part of your question, we have relied on international experience when we passed the law on foreign agents. This is not about bans. This law requires that any entity receiving funding from abroad to carry out its public political activities must be registered as a foreign agent. That is it. Incidentally, this type of activity is banned in the United States and here you have the result: under this law Butina was arrested and taken into custody and might be sentenced to 12 years in prison. We do nothing of the sort here. Our law only requires registration for entities receiving funding from abroad. There is nothing here to fear. Frankly speaking, I do not see any problems here, as far as law enforcement is concerned. However, we, of course, need to look into the matter.

When I meet with human rights activists, they point out certain drawbacks in this law, aspects actually related to charity rather than politics. And I think they are right. We need to pay close attention to what is happening in life and make adjustments where necessary. This must not interfere with our normal life and must not hinder the activity of honest and decent people who want to solve problems, including with the support of like-minded people abroad. There is nothing wrong with this. But political activity must, of course, be prohibited. Well, not prohibited but at least subject to law.

Second, the Orthodox church. The situation with the Orthodox church defies comprehension. This is direct interference of the state in religious life. This has not happened since the Soviet Union. But, unfortunately, it is happening in Ukraine now. They created this breakaway church of the Istanbul curacy. They did not like the Moscow curacy so let it be the Istanbul curacy.

Note that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchy was completely independent. Perhaps few people know this but it was actually a completely independent church. They did everything independently, including the election of bishops. The only connection was spiritual as they mentioned the name of Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia during sermons. That was all. Now look at how dependent they are becoming on Turkey, on the Turkish Patriarchy. Many appointments and, most importantly, a lot of money. I think this is Bartholomew’s main impelling motive, to bring this territory into subjection and make money on it. I believe this is the main underlying motive – except for a tip from Washington, of course. The fact that the State Secretary called Kiev about this matter and discussed it is an outrage. Absolutely unacceptable. However, it is happening.

Of course, this is another indication of the fact that the measure is also related to the election campaign and is meant to further widen the gap between Russian and Ukrainian people. The rationale behind it is, without doubt, political, and it is not good news for religious freedom in general. This is a clear and flagrant violation of the freedom of religion. I am mostly concerned about the likelihood that property redistribution will follow. This is already happening. This redistribution could turn into a heavy dispute, if not bloodshed, God forbid. I am sorry for the people who are defending their interests. They are usually helpless and unarmed. They are usually seniors and women. But there is, of course, the risk of property redistribution.

Dmitry Peskov: You promised a word to Kolesnikov, Mr President. We have been on for two hours now.

Mr President, the French protests against the fuel hike have, as everyone knows, morphed into a general protest against everything. President Macron has had to impose emergency social and economic measures. What is your take on the events in France? Are there any plans to raise fuel prices in Russia? There has been much talk about it recently. How likely do you believe it is that Russians would take to the streets, and what should the Government prioritise in that case? Its responsibility to protect the rights of the protesters or the need to uphold the rule of law?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: One does not exclude the other. Let’s begin with the final part of your question. We certainly must ensure our citizens’ freedom of expression, their right to voice their opinions including by holding public events. But such events, including public gatherings, must always remain legal. Activities that violate the law are unacceptable, and warrant the government’s response.

Let’s now turn to the events in France and to how they are seen from our shores. I believe that of course they have to do with the rise in fuel prices. But the hike was a trigger that sparked the unrest involving a large part of French society, and generally native French people. Recent data suggest that a significant proportion of the French, over 7 percent, support this. However, I do not believe it would be right to judge the French authorities’ response to this.

What is the difference between what we see in Russia and the situation in France with regard to fuel prices and the rest? The French Government was deliberate in its decision to increase the price of petrochemicals and fuel, which means that the Government did it. It was a policy move. This initiative was intended to redistribute resources, in this case, the resources of the population, and to use them to address other matters related to the energy policy. The funds that the Government expected to raise from gasoline, diesel fuel and motor oil sales were to go towards developing alternative energy sources such as solar energy, wind power, and so on. This was a deliberate move. The people did not like it, because they did not want to be the ones to pay for these changes.

What is happening in Russia? Gasoline prices have been growing since mid-2018 as the price of oil went up on the global markets. However, the Russian Government was prompt to take action in order to contain and even lower prices, and an agreement to this effect was reached with the main oil companies and refineries. That is the difference: over there the price hike was a conscious move, they were the ones who did it, while the Russian Government is fighting to ensure that prices do not go up.

Of course, no one likes it when prices go up, but the fact that the Government is acting this way is obvious. Whether it is for the better or for worse is another question, but this is what is going on. An agreement has been reached, and it covers a period until March 2019. Yes, an adjustment is possible when VAT goes up in early January, but I do not expect it to be substantial. This should be an adjustment in the order of 1–1.5 percent, not more, after which the Government will carefully monitor developments on the Russian and international markets.

I can share more details on this subject later on, but generally speaking this worked, even if we had to micromanage the situation, and I hope that it will also work in the future, so that the Government will be able to prevent any sharp surges in fuel prices next year.

Remark:(From the audience)

Vladimir Putin: What did you say? I cannot hear you.

Dmitry Peskov: This is about the potential for protest in Russia.

Vladimir Putin: I have already answered this question. I said that people have the right to express their point of view and to defend it, including in public, at rallies, but only within the limits of the law.

Alexandra Tinyayeva: Alexandra Tinyayeva, Ryazansky Krai TV company.

Mr President, digital television is fast approaching, and our region will be one of the first to get it. Analog television will be turned off as soon as February 11.

In this regard, the question is how do you assess the level of preparedness of all the regions for the transition to digital television? Will small towns and villages not be left out?

How to ensure the interests of those for whom buying even the cheapest console or any kind of equipment, for that matter, is a major expense? Of course, digital television of excellent quality and 20 free channels are a good thing. But what about regional media?

I think many colleagues will support me, because for us it means we should pack up and grab the want ads, as we will not be able to survive in analog television, and they will not let us into the multiplex.

Vladimir Putin: I am fully with you. My colleagues are aware of it. I am not pretending, or making up anything. When I discussed this matter with them, and when they insisted on moving ahead with digital, I agreed with them, just as I agree with you now – it improves the quality and the quantity of free channels.

Trust me, just like you, almost word for word, I asked them this question: “Is it possible that someone in a small village will be left without television?” That is the question. They say no. So, we agreed that we would proceed very carefully, in small steps.

Currently, Tver is undergoing such an experiment, then you. So far, there have been no complaints in Tver. The governor reported to me that he had gone to almost every village and is on top of things. They will help everyone in need of support in order to help them switch to digital, including the small devices needed to receive television of such quality. Then, another couple of regions, on and on …

Truth be told, there was a proposal to move fast and be done in six months. I said, “No, we cannot do that. We must act very carefully and monitor things on the ground and, of course, ensure the interests of the people who cannot afford these consoles, even though they are not expensive.” We will see how it goes in individual regions and then take small steps along this path.

Sergei Brilyov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

For understandable reasons, when international politics are discussed at this news conference, it is commonly about conflict, with the possible exception of China.

Today, on December 20, I wanted to mention a project I am working on with my British colleagues. This unprecedented project is on the history of cooperation between Soviet and British secret services during the Great Patriotic War, and the story of 36 Soviet agents that were sent to Nazi-occupied Europe. If you allow me, I will send the materials to you through Mr Peskov.

In this connection, I cannot help but ask you about the current status of Russian-British relations. Let us start with the small things. After the G20 summit, Dmitry Peskov told us that he did not know whether you had met with Theresa May, but you did meet with her. What do you think of these relations? And another interesting question: How, in your opinion, will Brexit impact Russia? What if it does affect us?

Vladimir Putin: Regarding these meetings, there are many meetings at events like the G20; you cannot even list them all because everyone is busy, and we meet, as they say, on the sidelines.

What does “on the sidelines” mean? We get up, we are walking near each other, you greet someone and say something to them. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and I greeted each other in about the same way and said a few words to each other. In my opinion, Russian-British relations are at an impasse, and it is in the interests of both states to move beyond this impasse.

How will Brexit impact us? The impact will be minimal, but it will affect the entire European economy and the global economy, as well. Therefore, it will affect us indirectly.

Are we interested in restoring full relations with the United Kingdom or not? Yes, we are interested; besides, in my opinion, the United Kingdom, primarily its business community, is also interested in this.

We know the British work in our country – fairly actively, I can tell you. Flagships of the British economy like British Petroleum, one of the key shareholders in our leading oil and gas company, Rosneft, – they are working here, and continue to do so, actively operating in our market, and they want to continue, and not just them.

Now, in connection with Brexit – if this eventually goes through to the end, and, by the way, I understand the position of the Prime Minister, she is fighting for Brexit (let them decide this for themselves, this is none of our business, or else they might accuse us of wrongdoing again), but the referendum did take place. So what can she do?

She must implement the will of the people as expressed in the referendum, or that is no referendum at all. Some didn’t like it – and the whole thing goes around and around. Is this democracy? I wonder how the critics of this process will assess the situation if and when some spit on this Brexit deal and carry out all these events again until they satisfy someone.

So what is the point of holding a referendum and what is the meaning of direct democracy? Well, anyway, this is their concern, never mind. But, they are interested in our market, interested in direct partnerships. We did not discuss this with the prime minister, but we discussed it with our colleagues and friends; we have many in Britain, especially among the businesspeople.

You know, if you look at direct foreign investment, where has most of the direct foreign investment come from this year? From Britain – $22 billion. Germany is second, followed by Singapore. That says something, right?

True, this may be partly due to the repatriation of our capital, because they have somewhat scared it off over there, but all the same, there is huge interest in our agriculture (our export potential is enormous and keeps growing), industrial production and the energy sector. There are so many areas. And I hope that common sense will prevail.

What about the skis over there? I find it interesting; it’s winter now.

Svetlana Shaganova: Svetlana Shaganova, State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, Karachayevo-Circassia. I have one simple problem for you: Putin plus skiing equals our region – Karachayevo-Circassia. You are certainly faithful to judo and sambo, but we would be happy if you visited our region, our new Arkhyz resort and enjoy the skiing there. Will you find such an opportunity in your busy schedule?

Vladimir Putin: I would very much like to do this. Either way, I congratulate you on the development of tourism. The republic is developing, these are competitive advantages for the republic – developing resorts like this. I’m sure this will develop further. If I can, I will come with pleasure. Thank you very much.

Remark: Regarding Gazprom, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Ah yes, Gazprom. Yes, one more question now, please, and then about Gazprom.

Goar Botoyan: Thank you.

AZG Daily, Armenia, Goar Botoyan. Thank you for letting me ask you a question for the fourth time already.

Vladimir Putin: I am listening.

Goar Botoyan: My question is, how will Russia restore its policy towards Armenia after the elections?

Vladimir Putin: What do you mean, restore? We have nothing that collapsed to the point of needing to be restored. Russia and Armenia have smooth relations, this country is our strategic partner in the region and the world in general; it is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation and the Eurasian Economic Union. What is there to restore? We only need to build on the foundation that has been created by the previous generations of leaders. The Armenian people are the closest ally of the Russian people in Transcaucasia; that is the way it has been historically, the way it is today and the way it, hopefully, always will be. We need to proceed from the realities of the current situation in the world and the region, proceed from the needs and our capabilities. We will discuss this soon with Mr Pashinyan, who is to pay us a visit next week.

Goar Botoyan: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: What about Gazprom, what’s up? Why are you scaring us?

Viktor Smirnov: Viktor Smirnov, 47news.ru, Leningrad Region. I will explain why Gazprom has no more gas.

Vladimir Putin: Do, please.

Viktor Smirnov: A bit of an introduction first. As you know, the Nord Stream pipeline passes through Leningrad Region; Nord Stream 2 is underway as well. You are now launching the TurkStream project, it all sounds good. But many Leningrad Region residents, who see these pipelines pass through their territory, have not had any gas for many years. Just recently, on December 7, Gazprom went ahead and said that it had no gas for the new consumers residing on the territory of the entire Karelian Isthmus.

Vladimir Putin: The Karelian Isthmus, you say?

Viktor Smirnov: The Karelian Isthmus, yes, two Leningrad Region districts and a section of St Petersburg’s territory. They believe the reconstruction of some compressor station for supplying people with gas is unnecessary (either they do not have money to spare or have already allocated it someplace else).

Similarly (this is just for the record, though), a couple of years ago, a pipe was stolen there – simply stolen. It cost a total of 1.8 billion rubles. No criminal proceedings have been initiated since.

Vladimir Putin: I do not understand. Did someone dig it out and drag it away, or what?

Viktor Smirnov: No, it was not installed, but the paperwork was all in place. So it kind of exists, but kind of does not.

Vladimir Putin: You mean, the money was allocated, but no pipe was laid?

Viktor Smirnov: Right. No criminal proceedings were initiated either.

Vladimir Putin: Where did this take place?

Viktor Smirnov: Priozersky District. You have been there before, you have seen it.

Vladimir Putin: I have indeed.

Viktor Smirnov: On top of this, the deadlines for connecting the Leningrad Region users to gas grids are often missed, but in the gas monopoly they use the beautiful words “postponement and synchronisation,” annual. That is, the deadlines are missed, and missed, and missed again, but this is synchronisation.

And the fourth point I would like to mention. With all the problems in the gas monopoly and the problems of the residents who also suffer from these problems (some have had no access to gas since 2009), despite all this, the children of the board members, the specific individuals we wrote about, have no qualms about taking top management positions in subsidiaries. And they have no qualms about posting photos of luxury cars on the internet, and flying in business jets to watch football in Italy. How is that for national wealth, Mr President? Aren’t they going too far?

Vladimir Putin: Well, it always helps to keep track of expenses, on superjet flights, to look what they actually did there, and what kind of football they watched. After all, Gazprom, among other things, sponsors foreign football clubs, like FC Schalke 04 in Germany. But why does it sponsor them? Because it does a lot of work there, in Germany, and in Italy too. These contacts need to be maintained. As long as it is within in the bounds of common sense, all is well, and we must always watch this very carefully. So you are right to pay attention to this. I will also look what they fly on and where.

As for domestic gas supply, it is growing. True, our sales on the foreign market are growing also. This year, exports will top 200 billion cubic metres – this is a very good result, a historic high. This is what Russia needs, not Gazprom, it is what our national economy and the federal budget need, because the bulk of Gazprom’s revenues, which then flow into the budget, come from exports, as it should be.

As for internal issues and decisions on connection, I repeat once again, things are moving forward. It is not only about Gazprom, Gazprom lays the pipelines to populated areas, and then there is further distribution, and the so-called last mile, so this problem should be resolved with the help of the region.

Viktor Smirnov: Well, the region has built it.

Vladimir Putin: Built it?

Viktor Smirnov: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: Well, I will check it out. I do not know, I will check and see.

Of course, Gazprom is driven by considerations of economic feasibility, but in addition to economic feasibility, there are social issues, of course, including the provision of gas to households in a given area.

I will see how it is built. You know, in any case, very often there is a discrepancy between the statements of local authorities and the reality. I will definitely pay attention to this. Priozersky District is what I heard. Priozersky, right?

Viktor Smirnov: Part of Priozersky, part of Vyborg, and part of St Petersburg.

Vladimir Putin: Ok.

Viktor Smirnov: Gazprom says that their station is not ready.

Vladimir Putin: I assure you, I will definitely look into this and respond.

Everything is not smooth sailing with us, but things are more or less stable. Here is Novaya Gazeta, I am sure they will come up with something. Please go ahead.

Ilya Azar: What do you know about the circumstances of their death and, in particular, the possible involvement of private military company Wagner in this?

Secondly, do you think it is right that a businessman whom everyone calls your chef, Yevgeny Prigozhin, is believed to be involved in managing PMC Wagner?

In general, what do you think about private military companies? One gets the impression that you are somewhat embarrassed by or deny their existence. Perhaps, we should be proud of them, because they operate in Syria, Donbass, Central Africa and other countries.

And another short question. As you are aware, human rights activist Lev Ponomaryov, a 77-year-old man, was arrested and jailed for 15 days for a post on Facebook. What do you as a human being think about this? Is that a normal thing to do?

Vladimir Putin: Let us start with Wagner and chefs.

All my chefs are employed by the Federal Guard Service. They are servicemen holding different ranks. I have no other chefs.

This matter should be made clear once and for all so that we do not have to return to it in the future. If someone wants to label someone, they are free to do so, and there is nothing wrong with that. This is part of politicking in our country. There is even such a thing as “safe food.” For your information, we do not outsource this job, and the Federal Guard Service employees do all the work.

Now, on to Wagner and what these people are doing. Everything must remain within the law, everything. We can ban private security firms altogether, but once we do so, I think you will be flooded with petitions demanding to protect this section of the labour market. Almost a million people are employed there. If this Wagner group breaks any laws, the General Prosecutor’s Office will go ahead and give it a legal assessment.

Now, about their presence in foreign countries. To reiterate, if they comply with Russian laws, they have every right to work and promote their business interests anywhere in the world.

Finally, the tragedy that you mentioned. It was certainly a tragedy. These people died and left behind families and friends. In general, unfortunately, a lot of tragedies are connected with journalists. I think we should never forget them, including the journalists who died in southeastern Ukraine under fire, or were killed in gun attacks, practically assassinated. Please do not forget about them, either.

As far as I know, your colleagues travelled to Africa as tourists, not even as journalists, without notifying local authorities. According to the data available to date, some local groups are behind this attack.

As far as I understand, an investigation is underway. Unfortunately, there is no reliable information yet, but we strongly hope that it will be eventually obtained. We are on top of this situation through our diplomatic channels. I hope that at least at some point we will find out what happened there. My heart goes out to you, to all members of the editorial board and the families of the people who died there.

Sergei Milvit: Vladivostok!

Vladimir Putin: Okay, let us hear from Vladivostok. It is louder than the others…

Sergei Milvit: Good afternoon, Mr President. Thank you very much for giving me the floor.

I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart and on behalf of all residents of Vladivostok for your decision to make it the capital of the Far Eastern Federal District. Thank you very much.

At the last news conference I asked you questions about ecology, a waste incineration plant, Snegovaya Pad and forest clearance. Thank you very much for the closure of the waste incineration plant. I hope it will not be reopened.

The only problem is that there are some companies that would like to handle separated garbage but for some reason the regional operator does not allow it because it is leased and a land plot cannot be subleased and so on.

Recently we had elections and as you know of course, the pension reform was the main reason for protests. This is why the elections were drawn out, this was the main reason.

I would like to continue talking about environmental protection and the sports complex that has not been finished and house equity holders that have been cheated – their residential houses have not been finished. Dalkhimprom-Karyernaya is where our marines are deployed. There is also school #55 that was closed and now children have to go to faraway schools.

And one more thing. The lands of the forest fund are government property like the strategic Primvodokanal facility. What is happening currently? To this day forests have not undergone cadastral registration. They are being cut down and cottages are being built – nothing has changed.

Lakes and water reservoirs at Primvodokanal that should be government property are now privately owned. I would like to ask you to clear up this question.

Remark: Question!

Sergei Milvit: Ok. Excuse me please. We will move on to the next issue. If you could comment briefly on the pension reform.

It seems to me that you were likely deceived about the pension reform. I will explain why. It appears that the pension deficit for 2018 amounts to 257 billion, right?

And when there was some popular unrest, they decided to give them another 500 billion so as to provide some benefits. Don’t you think that it is worth paying attention to this and maybe it is better to cancel the pension reform?

We are spending a lot of money. We have a deficit but are still spending so much. I think generally I have said everything I wanted about the pension reform.

Wait a minute. I would like to say happy New Year to Mr President and wish him strength, every success and all the best.

And, sorry guys, I would like to make one last point. Mr Peskov said that there was some information and I would like to share it.

Instead of all the requests that journalists want me to make, I will speak about the most important issue.

Mr President, please help. Vladislav Shestakov has been sick for three years. He is from the Irkutsk Region, the city of Cheremkhovo. He simply needs to be transferred to Moscow.

People have raised money. Please help us resolve this problem. And please answer the questions that I asked.

Please take measures to return the forest fund to the state and lakes to Primvodokanal.

Vladimir Putin: Let us begin with the most sensitive issue.

I apologise to Novaya Gazeta – you asked me about Lev Ponomaryov. We discussed this issue at a meeting with human rights activists at a Council meeting. It is not because I want to dodge the question, I just skipped over it inadvertently.

With regard to Ponomaryov, the court ruled based on calls for an unauthorised rally. I do not want to question court decisions or the fairness of this particular ruling.

Now, regarding the sensitive issue of the pension reform. In the early and mid-2000s, and you are aware of my position, I said that I was strongly against raising the retirement age, and it was impossible to do so back then.

I still believe this was the correct position, because life expectancy was at a low of 65, and the number of workers (the workers/non-workers ratio) was different and more or less acceptable.

Now, things have changed dramatically. The point is not about the current shortages. The fact is that trends are such that the number of workers is declining, while the number of non-working pensioners is on the rise.

You are right, we can leave this issue unaddressed, and I said so in my remarks. We can forget about it for the next five to seven years; however, then the country will have to do it no matter what, but it will have to be done abruptly, without a transition period, or any easing of terms, including for women.

We will then have to act quickly, that is the problem. If I did not see these trends, I would have never allowed this to happen, but these are objective trends that cannot be ignored.

You know, I was well aware of how people would react. No matter what arguments one can come up with, when a particular person’s interests are at stake, no one is delighted with the prospect. I was well aware that criticism would be coming both from the right and the left.

We know what was done by the left. In their time, they dismantled the Soviet Union with their economic policy, and later, in the 1990s, almost destroyed Russia. We would not be living in the Russian Federation now. Instead, we would be left with Moscovia, or something like it. We managed to keep the situation in check. Moreover, the country is getting stronger and better.

This is an unpleasant and, clearly, not a fun thing to do, but it has to be done nonetheless. To reiterate, if I was not convinced that it would have to be done some time down the road, I would have never allowed it to happen.

Now, regarding the specific questions that you asked, including forest reserves, the school and the sports complex. This, as you understand, requires separate consideration, as these are separate issues.

I promise that I will definitely look into them. I hope that Oleg Kozhemyako will do so as well. I am sure he can hear me now. I want him to submit the corresponding information to me and report accordingly.

Regarding the transfer of the administrative centre to Vladivostok, [Presidential Envoy to the Far Eastern Federal District] Trutnev raised this issue a very long time ago. Vladivostok is doing very well and is really the centre of the region and, to a certain extent, a centre of gravity, I mean with regard to neighbouring countries, so I think this is a well-grounded decision.

Sergei Milvit: More about the child…

Vladimir Putin: Where is the boy now?

Sergei Milvit: The town of Cheremkhovo, Irkutsk Region.

Vladimir Putin: What is wrong with him?

Sergei Milvit: He is ill.

Vladimir Putin: All right, we will definitely help him.

Dmitry Peskov: Our colleagues will take your contact information.

Vladimir Putin: Please go ahead.

Anastasia Melnikova: Good afternoon, my name is Anastasia Melnikova, Znak.com.

Mr President, torture at some prisons, pre-trial detention facilities and special penitentiaries has been reported with frightening regularity lately.

I am now talking about the Sverdlovsk, Chelyabinsk, Orenburg and Saratov regions, Khakassia and the Trans-Baikal Territory. Then last summer, thanks to our colleagues at Novaya Gazeta, we learned about atrocious torture at the Yaroslavl prison.

At the same time we hear the story of serial killer Vyacheslav Tsepovyaz, who, while being held at a high-security prison, was allowed the pleasure of eating crab, caviar and the like.

Don’t you think the Federal Penitentiary Service desperately needs reforming – and this needs to be done right now? Since I am clearly not the first to alert you to this problem, can you tell us what is being done and who will be given this responsibility?

When will prisons in Russia stop being a place for recreation for some people and a place where other people are subject to medieval torture? Because this is really too much, I mean the things that are now happening at federal penitentiaries. This is really too much even for our country.

Vladimir Putin: The situation at the prisons must constantly be overseen by the prosecutor’s offices, first of all. Clearly, the incidents that are being reported are absolutely unacceptable.

Any violation of the law, to say nothing of torture, is a crime. Those who violate the law, who commit these crimes must be held responsible. Incidentally, this is what happens when these kinds of stories come to light, in part, thanks to the media.

But it would also be incorrect to say that we need to destroy the whole system. We should improve the system and bring public oversight to a new level – I completely agree with this.

In connection with this, I would like to remind you that we have established commissions that must work on this and which will receive support from the Government and the President. I expect them to play a positive role in resolving the problems that the system definitely has.

Rustam Falyakhov: Gazeta.Ru, I am Rustam Falyakhov, good afternoon.

Mr President, when you opened the press conference, you summed up macroeconomic results and it seems we are living increasingly better. Paris residents might just be very jealous if we believe the statistics.

Vladimir Putin: Native residents of Paris are moving to the suburbs for a number of reasons. This is why a hike in petrol prices caused such discontent, many native Parisians moved to the suburbs and higher petrol prices are very hard on their budgets. But this is a different issue.

Let us speak about housing construction.

Go ahead, please.

Rustam Falyahov: I have a question about the accuracy of statistics, the accuracy of the information used to measure the standard of living in Russia. If we believe the Government reports, incomes are growing, you also gave the number of half a percent.

Incomes are rising whereas prices are falling. When Russians see price tags on goods and services, they understand that government officials are just playing loose with the numbers. I am speaking about the statistics from the Ministry of Labor, the Ministry of Economic Development, the Finance Ministry and others.

Experts are also bewildered as their numbers and their data do not conform to official statistical data, and apparently, desperate experts are already proposing to introduce a somewhat exotic happiness index, which would take into account the voice of the Russians.

My question is very simple – is it time to fine-tune official statistics? Otherwise, the May Executive Order will be fulfilled easily whereas the happiness index will stand at zero.

Vladimir Putin: I understand and partly share your concern, but only partly in the sense that it should be explained to people where the numbers come from and what they mean, and how they should be taken.

Because when pure numbers are presented and it is said that life has become better and happier whereas people see, as you say, real prices in the shops going up, it causes bewilderment and mistrust of the statistics. They are not perfect, by the way. If we can, if we do not get tired of talking for such a long tome, we can revisit the issue.

The statistics are not ideal but the point is not so much their quality, which needs perfecting, the point is also that people should be told that those are average figures.

We are talking about living standards. We are talking about salaries. I said that in the first ten months there was a 7.4 percent increase, and that by the end of the year it will be 6.9 percent. But people will see this and say, “I have had no such increase.”

This is an average. It concerns certain sectors and certain regions. Somewhere there is an increase in a certain sector, for example, for oil workers or steel workers. And in some cases, there is no increase. These are average figures. That’s the point.

Among the most important indicators are the disposable income of the population and retail sales numbers. This more or less conforms with the real state of affairs. And what is this like?

In 2015, we had an over-2-percent drop in the real disposable income of the population, in 2016 – minus 5.8, and in 2017 – 1.2, but also on the minus side. This is the disposable income of the population.

Incidentally, analysts certainly understand what I am talking about. But for the majority of people it’s unclear. Let me explain what it means and how these figures are calculated, it will take 30 seconds.

It is fairly easy to calculate people’s expenses: how and where they spend money and how much. In other words, if people spent money, they had it. Added to this are bank deposits and cash savings. This is, on the whole, a calculable sum, because it is more or less clear how much money people keep in banks. The Central Bank, which regulates the money supply, is aware of the total amount: how much is kept in banks, how much is in the hands of consumers. Cash savings in foreign currencies are harder to calculate. But this is basically clear. Then the taxes paid by an individual (personal income tax, or property tax if there is any property) are deducted, and then the figures are adjusted for inflation.

These are the disposable incomes of the population. Again, they had been falling in our country in these years. And only now, by the end of this year, we may have a 0.1-percent increase, but only if we do not take into account the lump-sum payments of 5,000 rubles to pensioners at the end of 2017.

So, the trend is generally positive, and it is backed up by other data. What data? Sales volumes – sales are picking up. Despite some problems in the auto industry itself, car sales have grown 27 percent.

As I said, the production of clothing and footwear has increased, food production is up 13 percent compared with the previous increase of 9 percent.

The volume of international air transportation has surged 46 percent, while domestic air travel has grown by more than 20 percent. These are all signs of growing consumer purchasing power. It is gradual and cautious, but it has been recovering.

It seems to me that if we explain this to people in normal human language and show it as a whole, it will become clearer where we are and where we are going. But this system undoubtedly needs to be improved, I completely agree with you.

It is difficult for me to decide… The one with the Russian flag – by all means.

Yelena Yeskina: Thank you very much Mr President, first of all from the cameramen because it appears that my flag was in their way. But do not worry, the flag was the longest but my question will be brief. My name is Yelena.

Vladimir Putin: The Russian flag cannot be in anybody’s way.

Yelena Yeskina: You see, camera operators. So, my name is Yelena Yeskina, and I am a journalist of the Dagestan State Television And Radio Broadcasting Company.

We live in a multi-ethnic country and this is wonderful, is it not?

Vladimir Putin: It is very good.

Yelena Yeskina: Here is my brief question. I will just add a little. I am indeed lucky because I live in a multi-ethnic country…

Yelena Yeskina: …in the multi-ethnic republic of Dagestan and plus in a multi-ethnic family. I am Russian and my husband is Avar, so our children do not really look Slavic.

Vladimir Putin: You yourself look like an Avar.

Yelena Yeskina: Really?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, a bit.

Yelena Yeskina: Must be all the years of living in Dagestan.

Vladimir Putin: Indeed. (Laughter)

Yelena Yeskina: After I had children, I started paying attention to what they show on Russian television. Very often, if not always, they show in ads beautiful children – so fair, with light hair, light eyes, big blue eyes.

And I started wondering where the other types, for instance Mongoloids, were. After all, Russia is multi-ethnic; we have about 200 ethnic groups. Let us take a regiment, the main regiment of the country– the Kremlin regiment and the guys there look Slavic. There is an unspoken requirement that Slavic guys should form this regiment. Do you not think so?

Vladimir Putin: No, I do not.

Yelena Yeskina: You do not. Then it just seemed so to me. Okay, Then I will just ask you…

Vladimir Putin: It just seems like that to you.

Yelena Yeskina: Probably it does, I apologise.

I have a request for you. This has nothing to do with seeming, and it is a big request. Please look into the investigation of the Gasanguseinov brothers’ case.

Two teenagers were shot in Shamil District in 2016. It turned out later that they were not militants and were not involved in illegal armed units.

Now the case has been reclassified and is being investigated under Article 105 Murder where the father is considered the injured party. This case has been transferred to Moscow but has not been brought to a close.

I would like to ask you to personally oversee the investigation of the case of the murder of the Gasanguseinov brothers and please rehabilitate them officially as soon as possible. I just feel so sorry for their parents.

Vladimir Putin: I must give corresponding instructions to Mr Bastrykin [Chairman of the Investigative Committee]. Consider it done. He will take control and report to me on what is happening there.

To be honest, this is the first I have heard of it, but I promise you that I will give it the attention it deserves and Alexander Bastrykin will receive corresponding instructions.

Recently, Turkey marked the anniversary [of the death] of the founder of the Turkish Republic Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. I would like to know what you think of Ataturk as a person and his historic role in global policy. Looking back at Ataturk, how will you assess today’s progress in relations between Russia and Turkey?

Vladimir Putin: Ataturk is certainly an outstanding figure in Turkish history. He made an extraordinary contribution to the efforts to preserve and restore Turkey as a state, he did quite a lot to achieve this.

He was a great friend of Russia, we know this, and he cooperated with Russia, worked with it and we appreciate his input very much.

Ataturk created modern Turkey, having laid the foundation for the state. This is what I think of him.

As for the status of our relations today, I think we should be satisfied with the progress in the development of ties between Russia and Turkey in the economy and on security issues. Although our interests have not always coincided on some matters, we have managed to make compromise decisions on how to resolve the Syria crisis.

We respect the national interests of the Turkish Republic and the Turkish people in this area, and we see that our Turkish partners are willing to compromise and so together we make these compromise decisions to secure the development of a favourable situation in Syria and for the sake of fighting terrorism and strengthening our relations.

As for the economy, you can see yourself that our ties are growing stronger. Despite Turkey being a NATO member country, it delivers on its commitments, as far as we can see. At the same time, being a NATO member it is pursuing an independent foreign policy.

We appreciate this, as it creates conditions for maintaining predictable and healthy relations. Of course, in this sense, the role of the incumbent Turkish President is great. Hopefully, this trend will continue under the leadership of Mr Erdogan.

Dmitry Peskov: The CIS TV and radio company MIR, if you please.

Vladimir Putin: The next one will be for equity holders, okay?

Elina Dashkuyeva: Hello, Mr President. Elina Dashkuyeva, MIR.

You said at the Russia Calling! forum that the dollar is leaving Russia. First of all, what advantages and disadvantages can we expect from this? What currency will the Eurasian Economic Union countries now use to pay each other – will they adopt an interstate currency or use new digital technologies such as blockchain?

Vladimir Putin: A very important and interesting question. About dollarisation and weaning the economy off the dollar, including the Russian economy.

In general, according to the IMF, payments in dollars have slightly decreased around the world. The year before last, they were a little over 63 percent I think, and now slightly over 62. But for Russia, this figure is higher, 69 percent.

This is due to the fact that our main export products, primarily oil, are listed on world exchanges in dollars, and this is a large amount.

Our foreign exchange reserves in dollars are declining; only recently, we were holders of American securities quoted in dollars in the amount of $104 billion, now down to $14.4 billion. Payments in yen and pounds have slightly grown in world trade.

As for weaning Russia off the dollar, it will exclusively concern settlements between economic entities, but will in no way affect citizens.

When we were discussing today’s news conference yesterday, Mr Peskov told me that they are removing exchange rate ads in some cities, including Moscow, and people are wondering about the reason behind this, whether this may be connected with some restrictions on using dollars.

There is nothing of the kind, and it will not happen, I would like to reassure everyone. Advertising exchange rates on currency exchange offices is only connected with one thing: the fight against illegal money exchange businesses. This is about streamlining the sphere of finance, money circulation, and cracking down on grey businesses operating in this area, nothing more.

Regarding the ruble. Yes, use of the ruble as a reserve currency in transactions is growing, maybe not a lot, but it is growing, primarily in transactions between the EAEU countries and in the post-Soviet space.

For example, use of the ruble has grown significantly in transactions between Russia and Belarus, reaching, if I’m correct, over 60 percent, almost 70 percent in clearing transactions while the numbers in cash settlements are smaller. But the role of the ruble will certainly increase in this segment, that’s obvious.

It’s more reliable and does not involve extra costs, especially the costs associated with dollar transactions. Because you and I know perfectly well: wherever clearing operations are made, they all go through US banks.

And if there are restrictions, it makes you want to sidestep these restrictions which is a natural reaction. This is happening around the world, by the way, in view of instability with these transactions.

However, several issues must be resolved for the ruble to be used at least as a regional currency. First, cutting volatility. The exchange rate must be stable, and we have generally managed to maintain it recently.

This is related to the activities of the Central Bank and the Government of the Russian Federation. As you have seen, it is stable; it has somewhat lost its dependency on fuel and oil price fluctuations partly due to the introduction of a floating exchange rate for the ruble.

This is the first goal. But we have to ensure further stability and keep inflation low. This is an extremely important condition.

Then comes the next step – we have to develop the financial infrastructure for transactions in the ruble. It is clear what this means. We need to improve the settlement mechanisms between economic parties and financial institutions. We will be working on this.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr Putin, perhaps you will take a question from foreign media. I can see The Wall Street Journalhere.

Ann Maria Simmons: Good afternoon, Mr President. Thank you very much for the opportunity to ask you a question.

In the West, many politicians, experts and even ordinary people see Russia as a great threat. They even think that you, as the President of Russia, want to rule the world.

Vladimir Putin: Well, of course.

Ann Maria Simmons: I want to know if you really want this. Also, please, what is the real goal of your foreign policy? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: With regard to ruling the world, we know where the headquarters that is trying to do so is located, and it is not in Moscow. However, this is related to the leading role of the United States in the global economy and defence spending: the United States is spending over $700 billion on defence, while we spend only $46 billion.

Just think of it, we have 146 million people in Russia, whereas the NATO countries’ population is 600 million, and you think our goal is to rule the world? This is a cliché imposed on public opinion in Western countries in order to resolve intra-bloc and domestic political issues.

When I say intra-bloc, I mean that in order for NATO to rally countries around itself, it needs an external threat. It does not work otherwise. You have to have someone to rally against. As a major nuclear power, Russia fits the bill perfectly.

With regard to domestic political issues, unfortunately, Russophobia continues to flourish in many countries, especially in Eastern Europe. For what purpose? In order to use old historical fears to ensure their own domestic political well-being.

This is also harmful, because, ultimately, it is about exploiting the phobias of the past, which prevent us from moving forward. It is harmful for the countries and peoples whose leaders are trying to pursue such a policy.

In fact, the main goal of our foreign policy is to provide favourable conditions for the Russian Federation, its economy and social sphere, to ensure unfettered movement forward and to strengthen our country from the inside, above all, so that it can take its rightful place in the international arena as an equal among equals.

We are in favour of consolidating the system of international law, ensuring unconditional compliance with the UN Charter, and using this platform to develop equal relations with all the participants of international affairs.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, you promised to talk about housing equity holders. Who wanted to ask about this?

Alla Andreyeva: We both work in different places than where we were born.

Vladimir Putin: Totally different.

Alla Andreyeva: Mr President, I have a very big request for you: can you please pay more attention to housing equity holders that have been cheated: in St Petersburg, the Leningrad Region and all across Russia.

What is happening now? Unfinished buildings that do not comply with building equity contracts are being commissioned in St Petersburg just to report to Moscow that everything is fine. You see, during your Direct Line on June 15, 2017, Albin and Minenko, a federal inspector, stood in front of my house, which had not been finished; construction was ongoing, but they officially declared the building commissioned, thus committing a criminal offence. But, you see, activists like me are being bullied for taking this position. They are trying to open a criminal case against me, because I am trying to write the truth about the officials.

My husband was killed on October 6, 2015. The investigation has not made any progress. Over the first 18 months they have made my life a nightmare, as well as the lives of my family, because someone leaked information to mass media. My mother passed away when she heard about this from a television report. Can you see what is happening in St Petersburg? My car was burned before that. All of this is happening in our hometown, our St Petersburg. Please, I am begging you to look into this case, to look into housing equity holders not only in St Petersburg, but in the Leningrad Region and everywhere in Russia.

I do not know. Let us, together with you… We are just like you, we do not bite. Come to St Petersburg and meet our activists. We will tell you the truth. We will tell you everything as it is, without these fake reports and road maps, without these useless scraps of paper published by these officials on their websites all over the country. I communicate with equity holders practically from all regions. We have a large group of activists. I have a pressing request. This is not even a question but a cry for help: please help the cheated equity holders and on the investigation of my husband’s case.

Vladimir Putin: Do you think your husband’s murder was related to your activities to protect the interests of equity holders?

Alla Andreyeva: Yes, this is the only connection I can see.

Vladimir Putin: Is that so? I promise you to pay attention to this by all means. Do not have any doubts about this. This is the first thing I will say.

The second is about the problem you raised, it is very urgent indeed. This gives me an opportunity to speak in greater detail about the problem and the construction industry. You know, this will never end if we do not sort out the mess and switch to civilised ways of housing construction. Indeed, the real estate industry is faced with the task of building 120 million square metres of housing but we must stop the practice of attracting people’s money and irresponsibly spending it.

This is what happens: yes, we keep the cost of housing relatively low but at the expense of what? Because some people acquire this housing at relatively low prices. In particular, this is also done at the expense of the people whose money is taken but who do not receive anything – either money or housing. This is the root of the problem and all evil. So we must certainly switch to civilised ways of funding this industry even if this leads to a certain reduction in the construction sector and some increase in prices. But without this we will never be able to put things in order there.

We must switch to bank financing, to normal and civilised loans or else this will never end. The people who found themselves in a difficult situation because they paid the money but received no housing must certainly be helped. We should not shut our eyes to the scale of this problem. It is clear and I agree with you that even the figures that are now shown, the figures on cheated equity holders and their personal problems do not click with reality. In fact, the problem is even more urgent than these documents show.

As for the situation you described in your question, I do not know these buildings of course, but we will see. I will also talk to the Acting Governor of this region, Mr Beglov. He is a very experienced man and can figure this out. I hope the situation will improve. In any case, be sure that this will be a subject of my conversation with him. The first thing that will happen is that he will meet with you.

Colleagues, listen to me. If we want to go on a little longer, we must not turn our press conference into an unauthorised rally. OK? Let us not. So I ask you to calm down.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to ask questions. By the way, regarding the question of whether there are non-Slavic faces on Russian TV, well, there are and Channel One shows me live on a daily basis.

Our question is: The Great Game show is about Russia-US relations. We would like to know if a meeting with Mr Trump is possible after he cancelled it himself, for example, in the immediate future. Are you ready for one?

And to quote Kipling, the 19th century, who said the Great Game is finished when everyone is dead. And it was a standoff of the Anglo-Saxon world.

Vladimir Putin: That’s great! “Would you like to meet?” “Will there be a meeting?” “Everyone will die.”

Marina Kim: I will explain. There was a standoff between the Anglo-Saxon world and the Russian world in the 19thcentury. Have the rules changed now or is it the same game? Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Unfortunately, we see that many birthmarks of the past, as Karl Marx used to say, are still there, but I hope that some things will somehow be made right. Ultimately we will reach the bottom in our relations and will understand that we have to go up, to push off from that bottom, go up, take a lungful of fresh air and with a clear head start thinking how to proceed.

I do not know if we have a meeting or not, I said a number of times that we are ready. We believe there are issues that we have to discuss together. Work at the expert level on Syria, for example, is ongoing. We also have to speak about North Korea, and Afghanistan, a great many other situations in the world.

After all, we need to talk about bilateral relations; we are interested in this, as well as our American partners are, by the way. Of course, there is no super-global interest. Our mutual trade stands at a meagre 28 billion, or even lower now, less than 28, 25 to 27 billion maybe. This is nothing, zero. With China, we will reach 100 billion this year, and with the US, everything is in decline. Who is interested in this? No one, not even the President of the United States, who is promoting the idea of reviving the economy, as he says, in his quest to make America great again.

I certainly believe that working with Russia is important in itself, and this includes economic cooperation, at least bearing in mind that we play a key role in the global energy market; cooperation in the field of nonproliferation and global security also matters, among other things. We have a lot to talk about. But we see what is happening there. Now power will change in Congress. Almost certainly, 100 percent sure, there will be new attacks on the current President. Under these conditions, whether he will be able to achieve any kind of direct dialogue with Russia, I do not know; you will have to ask them.

What worries me though? You mentioned the Anglo-Saxon world, where some deep-rooted, tectonic changes are occurring. After all, please note, Trump won – this is an obvious fact no one seems to be arguing with, but they do not want to recognise his victory either. This actually shows disrespect for the voters – refusing to recognise his victory, doing everything to delegitimise the incumbent President.

The same applies to Britain: Brexit got the majority vote – but no one wants to implement it. What are they refusing to recognise? The referendum results. Democratic procedures are being dropped out of the equation, and destroyed; their value is being destroyed. That is what is happening there. This is a serious process. I have pointed out that Western analysts are already discussing this matter, both in the States, by the way, and in Britain. We must keep this in mind. But whatever happens, we still need to build bilateral relations. We are willing to. As soon as possible. As soon as the other side is ready, we will do this.

This one. [Sign] “How’s the health?” Did you mean your health, mine or someone else’s? Or did you mean the country’s healthcare?

Yekaterina Butkevich: Good afternoon.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Yekaterina Butkevich: I’m Yekaterina from Ministry of Ideas TV channel. I was asking about your health.

Vladimir Putin: What is the channel’s name?

Yekaterina Butkevich: Ministry of Ideas. It is a private TV channel located in Yekaterinburg. The question is about your health. How are you feeling? How are you?

Vladimir Putin: Don’t hold your breath! (Laughter in the audience.)

Yekaterina Butkevich: I mean everyone is just asking their questions but no one is wondering how you are and whether you need help in some matters. (Laughter in the audience.)

Vladimir Putin: What is your name?

Yekaterina Butkevich: Yekaterina.

Vladimir Putin: Yekaterina, we will discuss it later. (Laughter in the audience.)

Yekaterina Butkevich: Mine is not a question but a proposal.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Yekaterina Butkevich: We all know that everything is based on ideas. Our life, our future and our country are also based on ideas. And our team proposes to establish a Ministry of Ideas of the Russian Federation.

Vladimir Putin: Establishing the Ministry of Ideas is a good idea.

Yekaterina Butkevich: I would like to hear your opinion on this matter. And we are ready to help establish this agency.

Vladimir Putin: I believe that our Ministry of Economic Development should fulfill this function, because it should generate ideas to promote development. But I am ready to discuss your proposal. We just need to understand the substance, what it means. You and your colleagues please think about it, explain what the “ministry of ideas” is, what it should do, how it will function, on what principles, and what the substance of its work would be.

As for my health, it really does not differ from anyone else’s. I mean, thank God, I do sports, and I am fine. I try to take care of my health. But just like everyone else, I can catch flu or something in the offseason. So far, everything is okay. Thank you very much for your concern.

Yekaterina Butkevich: Thank you.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, you have not taken any sports-related questions so far. Will you take one from Sovietsky Sport?

Vladimir Putin: Fine. There is something about a pike. What is up with the pike?

There are many sporting events, but I have only one question. I will not mention the World Cup, which we hosted brilliantly (strangely, no one has mentioned it today), nor will I say anything about Mutko leaving football forever yesterday, or even the upcoming 95th anniversary of our newspaper and our hope to see you as a guest in our editorial offices.

I have a quick question about doping which is a longstanding issue. It appears that this has long since become a political matter. Similar to the sanctions, international sports organisations seem willing to take a bite at us whenever they get the chance.

On the other hand, this is a comfortable position for many of our sports officials as they can sit on their hands and blame everything on politics. Do you think we are now clean enough in this area to be able to say that everything is fine now?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, to a large extent, we ourselves are to blame for this situation, because our athletes did use doping.

It is a different matter that we were accused of authorising the use of doping at the state level. This is not true, and it has never happened and will never happen, because we must keep in mind not only the results, which, of course are important, but also the health of our athletes.

However, since this has happened, we must, first, acknowledge it and, second, admit our fault, which means that we were unable to properly control doping. This is the responsibility of the organisations and government agencies that were supposed to do this.

With regard to whether we have stopped this or not, probably not, not 100 percent. Enormous efforts were made, and a good framework was created to do it properly and to make sure it was done with integrity.

But this is not just our scourge; doping is used around the world. Nevertheless, we must strive to reduce it completely.

The WADA commission is currently working in our country. They are holding talks with the Ministry of Sport, including on access to related materials. But you are right about the political aspect of it, which I hope will be overcome completely as well.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, we have been working for quite a while, almost three and a half hours. And so I have a suggestion. There are three veteran journalists from the national level – Terekhov from Interfax, Gamov from Komsomolskaya Pravda and Kondratyev from NTV television channel. I suggest wraping up by taking three questions from them.

Go ahead, Mr Terekhov.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, but let several other colleagues ask their questions too.

Dmitry Peskov: Since you are the most experienced you must express yourself in a few words.

Vyacheslav Terekhov: Absolutely.

In the very beginning you spoke about health, medications, healthcare and the like. In many respects our health depends on medications. Could you please tell us to what extent we are independent of foreign supplies as regards medications? How do our medications compare with their foreign counterparts in efficacy and who is responsible for the fact that our analogues are even worse than planned?

Vladimir Putin: You know, we must put things right here in many respects and counter the assertions you just made. You asked: Who is responsible for the inferior quality of our medications compared to their foreign counterparts? This is not true, they are in no way inferior, however we must combat certain things in several areas.

Doctors that prescribe these medications should cooperate less with producers and think more about their patients. Do you understand? Because when they cooperate with specific producers they say: “Ours are worse – take this imported one.”

But this does not mean that we should get rid of all imported medications. If a certain medication is required, it should be prescribed. This is a sensitive process but it is important to understand what the problem is in all respects.

Now I will say a few words about the scale. First, we have even started to export our medications. This year we will export 700 million worth of medications. This is not so much but still a considerable amount – 700 million.

If we look at price tags, 30 percent of medications are produced at home for the domestic market. They are 60 percent of the range.

As for our dependence or independence, everything is interrelated in this world. That said we produce, say, 80 percent of vital medications. Importantly, there are an increasing number of substances produced in Russia, not simply generics that are brought in from abroad. On the whole, this programme is working. I believe it was launched in 2015 and will be carried out until 2020.

As for the development of the pharmaceutical and medical industry, it is working. About 200 billion rubles are allocated for it and it is fairly effective on the whole. This is a very important area of our work and we will certainly continue it.

Alexander Gamov:Komsomolskaya Pravda website, radio and newspaper.

Mr President, frankly speaking, I feel sorry for President Putin because we have nice numbers, truthful numbers, they are real, they do not raise doubts among experts, I think. Meanwhile, ordinary people do not quite trust them because life is hard in Russia. This is my first point.

The second. There is no peace, I do not mean the situation itself, but in people’s hearts, souls, minds, and thoughts. In other words, people worry a lot about both you and the country. So why does this happen? I believe that the middle tier official, the top tier, ministers, governors – they are all afraid of Putin. You have appointed everyone, lined them up, there are basically all normal people. Whereas those officials who want to talk about an excise tax on sausage, or the Kremlin banning births or whatever, they muddy the waters and make it harder for people to believe Putin, the state and so on. I think some sort of reform is needed. We must do something with this middle tier. Let us retrain them, and let us help you.

To conclude, literally just before the press conference I got a telephone message, a very short one, “Gamov, ask Vladimir Putin if it is time to look into the disastrous gap between the incomes of top managers and ordinary people? When will the President finally make a clear statement about it?” Because you have revisted that topic several times.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: The point you are making is an eternal Russian argument: The Tsar is good while the courtiers are thieves and outlaws. You see, if something does not go well, it is everyone’s fault. This is my first point. And secondly, as I have already said, the point is not that the numbers are somehow wrong. The point is that they do not work well with the numbers. They do not explain the numbers to the people. Whereas you said that the numbers are good but they are not trusted. As if you failed to hear what I said in the beginning and in the middle, when I gave data related to a decline in the real disposable incomes of the population. What is good about that? I did not say it was good. Incomes fell in the country in 2015 while in 2016 they were down by 5.8 percent. What is good about that? And I did not say it was good, I said the trend is righting itself, thank God, and it is an objective factor. I do not think that people here do not believe it. These are truthful things, and I hope people do understand that.

Speaking about officials in general, you, of course, know that there are people who have no idea what they are saying. They are not where they should be and are not careful with their words. There are people like this. But this is what we all are, our environment. That kind of person was just someone yesterday and is an official now, so they can blab. They are not ready. This means they are simply not ready for the job.

And, of course, we must work with people, with all the officials. There are many good and active people among them, too. This is a fact, we should accept this. You see, it is impossible to close everything and then open the box to make it right. It is not a coincidence that Moses and the Jews wandered in the desert for 40 years. Well, we cannot lead 146 million people across the desert for so long.

This is a process of growing up for the civil service. We are working with it; see, we are organising various contests for young people. We have a human resources contest, Leaders of Russia. We teach them later at our academy. I believe 12 or 15 graduates have already become governors, two are federal ministers and five or six are deputy ministers. Little by little we will be expanding this. It is a long process.

Alexander Gamov: You have not talked about the gap.

Vladimir Putin: Speaking about the gap. First, unfortunately, it does exist.

Second, which is also unfortunate, as rule, this is a global trend. In any case, this is what is happening in large economies. Look what is happening in the US. Our US colleagues are present here, they must read US analyses. The gap between those who earn a lot and those who earn very little is expanding by their estimation. By the way, the campaign of President Trump, the current president, noted this very clearly. They used this in their campaign and turned out to be right.

Of course we must take this into consideration. At the very least we must decrease the number of poor people. This is true.

Is that all?

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, we have a veteran to wrap things up.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, another veteran.

Vladimir Kondratyev: I will really be brief.

Mr President, speaking at an earlier press conference, you said something interesting, that you collect emotions. You collect emotions, and this is your wealth as the country’s leader. What kind of year was this in terms of emotions? Which event do you consider the biggest?

Vladimir Putin: Two events.

Vladimir Kondratyev: Two events?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. Certainly, the presidential election, as this is important for the whole country. And the World Cup, which also turned out to be important for the whole country and the world.

Mr President, last week you signed an executive order on moving the capital of the Far East from Khabarovsk to Vladivostok. I have a question about this: what plans does the Government have to strengthen the regions in the Far East and in particular, of Primorye Territory? Will we live to see the gasification of the entire region? And what do you think about the merging of our territory with Sakhalin Region?

Vladimir Putin: You see, the merging of any constituent entities in the Federation is a matter for the entities of the Federation themselves according to current law. If Sakhalin and Primorye Territory decide to unite, they can; they have to go through their respective procedures in parliament or hold a referendum, whichever is provided for in the regional legislation. But looking deeper, Sakhalin is a self-sustaining region, it provides a large share of its own budget, and the average income of the population is higher than in the Territory in general, but this is the internal business of the two regions. That is my first point.

The second concerns development. We have a complete programme, a package of measures to develop the Far East and Primorye Territory, a complete programme to establish favourable development conditions in the Far East. This includes the well-known Priority Development Areas, which is the ‘Far Eastern hectare’, the development of infrastructure, ports, airports, it is support for exports, including, and primarily, non-energy exports. We will do all this; it will never disappear. On the contrary, all of this will be actively pursued. There must be no doubt about it whatsoever. This will offer us an additional competitive edge.

We will definitely develop science and education; we will keep supporting the Far Eastern Federal University. We will certainly develop the shipbuilding sector and continue the construction of the shipyard in Vladivostok. And you know, the first steps have already been taken for this, and fairly big steps. Russia’s largest tonnage ships will be built in Vladivostok. We will build ships that are bigger than anything seen in the Soviet Union.

We will obviously continue our support for the aviation sector; plants will have contracts to keep busy, and research will be developed. And a totally new sector has emerged – aerospace, the new Vostochny Space Launch Centre. Marine biology, everything connected with fisheries – this will all be a priority for us. I have no doubt that we will achieve positive results.

I promised Euronews. Go ahead, please.

Galina Polonskaya: Hello, Mr President. Galina Polonskaya, Euronews TV channel. Thank you for the opportunity to ask you a question. I will put down the sign, I have already become one with it during these four hours.

The UN adopted a resolution about Russia’s militarisation of the Sea of ​​Azov, Crimea, and part of the Black Sea. After what happened with the Ukrainian ships in the Kerch Strait, there were reports that Russia was sending military equipment to Crimea. Why should Russia reinforce its military presence in Crimea? Is Russia ready to declare the entire water area of ​​the Sea of ​​Azov its territory? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Look, in 2014, people living in Crimea came out for the referendum and ultimately voted for reunification with the Russian Federation. From that moment, after the relevant domestic procedures, Crimea became part of the Russian Federation, part of Russia. Therefore, we are entitled to and will continue to pursue our military policy on any part of our territory, as we see fit to ensure national security. Crimea is no exception. If the General Staff, if the border guards believe that we need to do something extra in some area, we will do it. Russia’s security in this area will certainly be ensured. We are not going to overdo it there, but what needs to be done, will be done. This is the first point.

Now about the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. We almost immediately announced that we intended to build a bridge to link up with Crimea, which we did. First we built an energy bridge, then a gas pipe, and now we are building two power plants there, in Sevastopol and in Simferopol, with a total capacity of 940 megawatts. We are building the Tavrida road, to be completed by the end of 2020. Next year, I think, the two-lane road will open, and by the end of 2020, a four-lane road.

We will develop the local infrastructure. That is, it is not only about reinforcing the military component, but above all, the civilian, infrastructure component. All this will certainly be implemented. We have a federal targeted programme for the development of Crimea. For the next two years, we have allocated 300 billion rubles for the development of the peninsula. All this will progress. Along with that, the military component will be strengthened, as far as we need it.

As for the Kerch straits, the situation is difficult, in terms of nature. These straits are very narrow and rather shallow. Their depth is about 13 metres. Let me emphasise that pilotage has always been conducted there. The construction of the bridge does not interfere with anything. Pilots escort ships as they used to.

Freight turnover is growing, in particular, in the ports of the Sea of Azov, this is true. But work there is organised and all participants in these economic activities know how this is being done. There is a queue there. Sometimes it is bigger and sometimes it is smaller. Just look at the number of vessels in front of the entrance to the port of Novorossiysk. There are quite a few of them.

I will have to repeat this once again: On September 11 of the past year Ukrainian vessels, including warships, fulfilled all requirements of passage through these straits and under the bridge and were calmly led by our pilots into the Sea of Azov and further on to their destination in the Sea. Nobody interfered with them – just helped.

This time everything was different. This is a deliberate provocation in the course of Mr Poroshenko’s election campaign. We have already shown in the media the logbook that contains the order to “enter secretly.” What does “secretly” mean? Nobody can say what might happen there without pilotage, all the more so when some politicians say in public that they are ready to blow up the bridge. Naturally, we cannot allow this to happen. This would be simply absurd for us, period. As for routine activities, nobody restricts them.

Now a few words about the regime in the Sea of Azov. We have a treaty dating back to 2003, I think. What does it say? It reads that there is a coastal area of five kilometres, not the usual 12 sea miles in accordance with the international Law of the Sea, but five kilometres off the coast. These are the territorial waters of a state, in this case of Russia or Ukraine, and the rest is common sea. Incidentally, our fishermen were once captured although they did not enter the five km zone. Nonetheless, they were seized and their captain is still detained. And your Euronews channel does not even mention this as if this is how it should be. The same is true of other Russian seamen: there is a dry-cargo vessel with its crew out there somewhere, but nobody recalls anything. Therefore, we should observe these agreements and abstain from announcing any unilateral actions.

As for warships, they should be in constant contact with our border guards. The border guards conduct their border mission. In conditions of martial law, I can hardly imagine warships going to and fro, but in general we would like to normalise the situation. We do not create any obstacles to vessels, including warships. Let me repeat that last September vessels were led by our pilot and nobody interfered with them, on the contrary we only helped.

This is a complicated problem, which we will certainly keep working on. You are right about this, I agree.

As far as the amendments to the Constitution are concerned, this is a matter for broad public discussion.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, there is a banner “Russians in Danger.” Please, tell us, which Russians are in danger? The last row. Show it, you raised it before.

First, thank you for noticing the back row. The press conference has been going on for over three hours, and only the front rows and middle rows…

I have a personal request. We have guests from Latin America here. During each break they keep yelling “Latin America,” but no one is paying attention. If possible, will you please give them the floor after me; they have come a long way.

And now, properly, Mr President, just a second. I have already forgotten what I was going to say.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s talk to the people from Latin America then.

Khamzat Batukayev: This is a serious subject, in fact. I wrote “Russians in Danger” because thousands of our compatriots are still in Syria. They are there for one reason or another, but there are also children who are not there by choice.

Their parents have been sentenced to long prison terms, maybe even life terms. The children are left without parents, without care, and there are many such cases. How can we bring them back? We know your principled position on the issue, so the question is how can we proceed with this?

And, if I may, a second brief question. One of the first requests from the first president of the Chechen Republic, Akhmad-Haji Kadyrov, that was addressed to you regarded the construction of the airport in Grozny, the restoration, to be exact.

It was restored, but ever since it has been suspended in some technical phase, which means it was not completely finished. Currently the republic’s government is holding discussions with various ministries on the second stage and apparently, there are some problems.

How can this be completed? Objectively, Chechnya is still developing, but we host hundreds of thousands of tourists, and the airport capacity is not sufficient.

And the last thing. You know Mr President, we have a main avenue that is named in your honour. You might not be aware that we are currently building the Vladimir Putin Judo Palace.

You always receive one of the highest percentage of votes in the region, I can honestly tell you that Chechens have deep respect for you, this is why I would like to invite you there.

You have also received an invitation from Adygeya or Karachayevo-Circassia, so when you go there, you can also come to the Chechen Republic as a second leg of your trip.

Vladimir Putin: I cannot go to Chechnya on my way to or from. I must go there directly. And I certainly will. This is the first thing.

Second, regarding the children. I believe this is a priority. We are engaged in this; we have a programme for repatriating these children to their homeland, to Russia, Chechnya, to the Caucasus, wherever. And Ramzan Kadyrov is also involved in this. We are doing this and will continue with it.

Urals, there is a sign that says Urals.

Roman Zykov: Good afternoon.

My name is Zykov Roman, Urals television.

Mr President, you say that patriotism should be our national idea. Isn’t it time we codify this in law, amend the Constitution to stipulate that patriotism is the national idea? Right now, a national idea is prohibited by of the Constitution. This is my first question.

Vladimir Putin: It is ideology as a leading force that is prohibited, not patriotism. I hear you. This is a subject for a wide public discussion.

Roman Zykov: And the second question. We have spoken about active patriotism; now, I am worried about the environment.

A lot of money is being allocated for the purification of water, which then goes to consumers, but there is practically no money allocated to maintain the quality of the pipes that deliver it to consumers, and to ensure that the sewage does not pollute our nature.

Unfortunately, 30 percent of sewage water pollutes nature – experts confirm this. Could you look into the issue and possibly adopt some technical regulations so that the quality of the pipes that deliver water to consumers like you and me is higher and we do not pollute the surrounding waters?

Vladimir Putin: This is a question of technical regulations.

You are certainly right. We must look into what is being supplied. I agree with you. It is a problem. But the problem is not only the pipes.

The problem is in the discharge of wastewater, and its purification. This is an issue that affects the entire country. But the relevant decisions have actually been taken here. This also applies to industry.

Applicable law provides for a transition to the latest available technologies. Penalties are imposed for the discharge of untreated water, and, generally, for waste, on companies that do not comply with the environmental requirements.

As for the airport, when needed, it operates as an international airport. If something more is needed, Mr Kadyrov will come and tell me. I will see what needs to be done; I just do not see what else needs to be done. The airport is functioning, but if we need to do more, we will see. Will that do? And thank you for the invitation.

Friendship of Peoples – over there, a young woman is standing in a kokoshnik. Yes, please, give her the microphone.

Valeria Pavlyuchenko: Mr President, good afternoon! My name is Valeria Pavlyuchenko; I am a representative of the First Russian ethnic TV channel.

I believe you know about our TV channel, because it was established with the support of the Presidential Council for Interethnic Relations. I would like to expand on the topic raised by our colleague from Dagestan, who spoke about ethnic and interethnic journalism.

We are a young team, let us say, a developing channel, and we report about the achievements of the regions, and interethnic stories. We would like to ask for your assistance, we really want to become information partners in the implementation of ethnic policies. Can you help us with this?

Vladimir Putin: Look, we have the Presidential Council for Interethnic Relations. I will definitely ask my colleagues to get in touch with you and find opportunities to work with you on this most important matter for our country.

I wish you all a Happy New Year. Please do not be mad at me, we really have to wrap up now. Thank you very much for your attention, and for your questions. I sincerely wish you all the best.

Question: Mr Lavrov, we met with you in the same format one and a half year ago.

We began by stating that the foreign policy situation surrounding Russia at the time was growing alarming. But you assured us that there would be no war because the Russian leaders were absolutely against it. Our partners, as you said, were certainly not interested in it either. Now, one and a half year later, we can see no improvements. On the contrary, things are growing increasingly alarming. Some of our listeners even feel scared. Others compare the current situation with the late 1930s. One of the readers even asks: “Please be honest and say what we should expect? Will we be attacked?”

Sergey Lavrov: There are comparisons that go farther back into history. Both in this country and elsewhere, there are figures who predict that a situation will arise resembling that on the eve of World War I. They are referring to the pent-up antagonisms existing in Europe, including, by the way, in the Balkans. But it is my strong, firm conviction that the politicians in the key countries cannot allow a big war to happen. The public opinion and the nations themselves will not let them. I hope that the parliaments in each Western country will also display maximal responsibility.

But I absolutely agree that tensions are being fomented in an unprecedented way. We see international agreements collapsing. Not so long ago, the United States unilaterally disrupted the ABM Treaty. We had to adopt measures that would prevent this extremely negative event from undermining strategic stability. Next in line is the INF Treaty, which Washington believes to be outmoded, while accusing us of violating it. In so doing, they are hinting in no uncertain terms that they would like to extend the restriction identical to that assumed by the USSR and the United States to China and a number of other countries, including North Korea and Iran.

We are categorically against this initiative. We are in favour of keeping the INF Treaty. The entire international community has repeatedly recognised it as a cornerstone of international security and strategic stability. Today at the UN, we will make a second attempt to submit a General Assembly resolution in support of preserving this Treaty.

Apart from that, we have presented the US with our concerns regarding how it implements this Treaty. These concerns are based on concrete facts and developments in the military technical sphere, specifically the deployment of a US military base in Romania and deployment plans for Poland. We hear statements by our US colleagues that the only way to save the Treaty is to destroy the 9M729 missile, which Russia has allegedly developed with a range exceeding the limit imposed by the Treaty. In response, Minister of Defence Sergey Shoigu, following similar steps at the expert level, has officially suggested that he and US Secretary of Defence James Mattis meet and start a professional discussion. The US did not even reply or at least formally acknowledge the receipt of the invitation. Possibly, if they had done this, they would have had to explain why they are evading a professional discussion and continue to act in the notorious “highly likely” style, as though wishing to say that what remains for us is to repent because we are allegedly to blame for everything.

While we are on this subject, I would like to say this. I have no doubt that US President Donald Trump was sincere when he said during his election campaign that he wanted good relations with the Russian Federation. Regrettably, the consequences of Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton have caused a tsunami in US domestic political life, primarily because the so-called system elites have felt uncomfortable. They saw the current developments as something that was putting power within reach of ordinary voters. Since then, no one has ever corroborated with facts the repeated charges of Russian meddling in the US elections, hacker attacks on the Democratic Party and other US agencies, etc.

Let me note that this Russophobia, as we are convinced, is to a decisive degree linked to the internal political infighting [in the US]. The United States, no matter who would advocate good relations with Russia, sees us as a rival as it does China. It is not accidental that for the lack of facts proving our “sins” against US democracy, the Russophobic campaign has brought no results whatsoever.

In recent days, the US propagandists have pitched in at China. In their view, China is already the “chief hacker” undermining the mainstay of US society. It is regrettable that the interests of the international community, global strategic stability and international security are being sacrificed for the sake of domestic political squabbles. But we will always be ready for dialogue. Even under these circumstances, we never refuse to take part in a professional discussion in areas where our partners are prepared to consider the existing threats and problems in an equal and honest manner.

After a long break, yet another round of talks on fighting terrorism has been held. Our security services are in contact on a number of other issues, including Syrian settlement, the North Korean nuclear problem and Afghanistan. We maintain regular enough contacts, even though we are not always on the same page.

Question: They write, with such friends, who needs enemies?

Sergey Lavrov: We have this proverb in Russian.

Question: When we mentioned the growing tension in the world, we actually meant Ukraine. The Kerch Strait incident is going too far. We also had in mind Donbass, where almost every day they are expecting an attack. Why do we compare poorly to Ukraine, according to the opinion of the world community?

Ukraine has assumed a clear ideological position: Russia confronts us, so we fight Russia, defending ourselves, and so on. We – Russia – are declared the enemy. Soon our church, our priests may become great martyrs, because we do not know what will happen to them. Some get imprisoned, and criminal cases are brought against them. Then, there might be a religious war, we have already gone this far. With the situation so aggravated, we still hold a sluggish, relaxed position, when Ukraine has openly declared us an enemy, and introduced martial law. Why don’t we declare Ukraine a Nazi regime? We have a lot of evidence: the new law on the Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army recognising Hitler’s rabble as heroes. This has already been proven. Why do we not explicitly declare that Nazism is a rabid dog one doesn’t talk to, but shoots? This would give us a moral trump card in the global community. This would not be a conflict with Ukraine, which has declared us an enemy and has already declared martial law, but a fight against the Nazi regime. The Ukrainian people are not our enemy. The enemy is the Nazi regime. Why not declare it directly?

We are putting our diplomats who remain there at risk (our readers write about this). Why not withdraw the Embassy from that country?

Many people ask us when Russia will recognise the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics.

Sergey Lavrov: We are not at war with the Ukrainian regime, which has all the features of the Nazi and neo-Nazi. The Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine who live in Donbass are fighting it.

Question: Then maybe we should break off the relations with them? How can we have a relationship with the Nazi regime?

Sergey Lavrov: We have relations with the Ukrainian state. The Ukrainian state is much more important for us than the regime that came to power thanks to the West betraying all norms of international law and international behaviour.

The Ukrainian people have nothing to do with it. The overwhelming majority, I am sure, wants peace in the country, wants to get rid of this shameful regime and return to normal relations with the Russian Federation. For that, the internal problems of Ukraine will have to be resolved, of course. They are much wider, and much deeper than just the DPR and the LPR. As a reminder, it all happened because the West has committed criminal connivance, I should say. Back in February 2014, the European Union, through the foreign ministers of Germany, Poland, and France, guaranteed an agreement between Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. The next morning, the opposition destroyed that agreement. Neither France, nor Germany, nor Poland, nor the United States, which did not sign the document, but actively supported it, lifted a finger. They did not even apologise to those who had hoped that the agreement would lead to a peaceful settlement.

Three days later, Dmitry Yarosh who led all the military operations on the Maidan, publicly stated (it was his official statement and is still available) that “Russians should not be in Crimea, because they will never glorify Stepan Bandera or Roman Shukhevych and will never think in Ukrainian.” Therefore, he said, Russians in Crimea “must either be destroyed or expelled.” After that, unrest began among the Crimean people. When Yarosh later tried to organise an attack on the Supreme Council, it erupted in a protest, which led to a referendum and eventually to the decision to return Crimea to the Russian Federation.

Now we are obliged to fulfill the Minsk Agreements.

Question: They collapsed long ago. You spoke about this 18 months ago. Nobody remembers that now, except Donbass.

If you come to the village of Zaitsevo, where every household has buried someone, and if you mention the Minsk Agreements, I don’t know what they will do to you. They honour them, and the fact that they are being killed on a daily basis – is that Minsk Agreements as well?

Sergey Lavrov: I believe that there is no alternative to the Minsk Agreements, and I also said that back in 2016. The UN Charter has also been violated many times, and it has also malfunctioned on many occasions. But we must not give in to panic. Are you suggesting that we recognise the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics?

Question: Yes, of course.

Sergey Lavrov: And then what?

Question: After that, we would defend our territory, recognised by us, and we would help our fraternal peoples.

Sergey Lavrov: Do you want to lose the rest of Ukraine? Do you want to leave it at the mercy of the Nazis?

Question: As I see it, we should go to war against the Nazi regime because they declared martial law against us, they have called us enemies, and they attack our ships.

Sergey Lavrov: We will not go to war against Ukraine, I can promise you that.

Question: What should be done about the church?

Sergey Lavrov: You suggest recognising the independence of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and declaring war (I don’t know how you imagine that Russia would attack Ukraine). That would just amount to a nervous breakdown and weakness. If we want to preserve Ukraine as a normal, adequate and neutral country, we must ensure that people living in Ukraine have a comfortable life. I disagree with your position if you want the rest of Ukraine to celebrate the creation of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, as well as the birthdays of Roman Shukhevych and Stepan Bandera, rather than May 9, as their national holidays. The Minsk Agreements formalise the principle of Ukraine’s decentralisation and the use of the Russian language where Russian-speaking people want to speak it. Today, this regime is moving to wreck its own constitution, which guarantees the rights of the Russian language, as well as its international obligations; but this does not mean that we must abandon all Ukrainians who are governed by this regime to their own devices.

Question: Why don’t we officially recognise it as a Nazi regime, and why don’t we say that we will not have any dealings with it because it is impossible to have dealings with Hitler?

Sergey Lavrov: This is an appealing position. Somewhere in the village of Zaitsevo people will probably rejoice for a week if we now sever all relations with this regime. And what will happen next? After that, you will need to explain why progressive and civilised humankind lost Ukraine.

We want to keep it. Today, we have the right under international law to demand this from Ukraine and, most importantly, from the West, which now controls Ukraine.

Question: What do you think of the OSCE’s work in that region? Its representatives are coming here while in fact working against us, spying against the Donbass defenders and communicating their information to Kiev. After the OSCE visits a town or a village, they become subject to strikes. It is a known fact. The OSCE is never on our side.

Sergey Lavrov: First of all, it is not true that the OSCE brings shells to their targets. The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) is indeed under very serious pressure – mainly from pro-Western Ukrainians; but the mission is also susceptible to our influence and is gradually making steps in the right direction, although it takes a while to be pushed first. I will give you an example. We have been asking the SMM to stop writing such things in their reports as “this week, so many strikes took place, so many civilian facilities were destroyed, there were so many civilian casualties”, but to specify from which side of the contact line [the strikes came], which victims and what kind of destruction. A year ago, with great difficulty, we managed to get the OSCE to write its first report on this matter which said that the eastern side of the contact line – where the self-defence forces are living and defending themselves – account for the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties and destruction in the civilian sector.

Ukraine tried hard to stop this report, to stop it from being published. But it failed. The OSCE eventually did what it was supposed to do and the required statistics became publicly available.

We have one more concern regarding our Western partners (who, I believe, discredited themselves in this Ukrainian story starting in February 2014, when they failed to compel the opposition to fulfil the agreement with the government). This, in fact, has to do with the media. You, for example, go to Donbass. Our television crews are working at the contact line 24/7 to show the frontline from the perspective of the self-defence forces. When our Western partners claim that the self-defence forces are to blame for all the clashes and attacks, that they provoke them, we show them our journalists’ work, which is always available on air and is broadcast repeatedly on the news. We ask them: if they are so sure that the Ukrainian government is acting in the right way and they want to show the truth to international audiences, then why are there no Western journalists working on the western side of the contact line the same hours as our journalists? There were a couple of cases when, I think, BBC reporters travelled there for a few days and, by the way, filmed a rather objective report (perhaps this is why this practice was stopped).

They can’t wait for us to break off the relationship with Ukraine and withdraw from the Minsk Agreements. Just like after the coup of February 21, 2014, they will wash their hands of them and say, “so it died” – meaning they are not bound by anything. It will be a huge mistake.

Question: If President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko now sends troops to Donbass or warships to break through the Kerch Strait, what will we do?

Sergey Lavrov: I am sure that there will be provocations. The day before yesterday we heard Petr Poroshenko speak at a show called Unification Council for Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Actually, he has never stuck to the diplomatic language before, but this time he crossed all lines imaginable and unimaginable. I have never heard such rudeness from a leader who considers himself a politician. He seemed to actually lose control a few times. Apparently, something is happening to him. But this is not my problem.

Commenting on the martial law he wanted to introduce for 60 days, then 30, first across the country, then only in Russian-speaking areas, where he has a very low popularity rating (it is low enough everywhere, but there he is not popular at all, and does not even enjoy minimum understanding), Poroshenko said they would not extend martial law unless there are armed provocations along the contact line in Donbass or, as he put it, “on the administrative border” with Crimea.

The 30-day martial law expires on December 25. We have information (official Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova has mentioned this more than once) that Ukraine has concentrated around 12,000 troops and a large amount of equipment on the contact line. American, British and, apparently, other instructors are actively helping them. An American drone regularly patrols the area. We have reported this. According to additional information that we tend to believe, in the last ten days of December, President Poroshenko is planning an armed provocation on the border with the Russian Federation – Crimea.

He will get a response. He won’t find it funny, I can assure you.

This is our country, our border, and we will not allow him to try in any way to defend “his interests” as he sees them and violate those rights that the Crimeans have defended in full accordance with international law. Moreover, according to our information, he is discussing this provocation on the border with Crimea with his Western curators and “trustees.”

According to our data, which seem credible, he is advised to maintain low-intensity hostilities to support the ongoing outcry in the propaganda space about “Russians attacking Ukraine” and “Russians need to be further sanctioned,” but in no case should military operations be allowed to reach a phase to elicit a full-blown response. Nasty, petty provocation. Our respective services take all necessary measures to prevent such excesses from happening.

Question: I would like to talk about Russian-US relations again. Mr Poroshenko is behaving boorishly, but I think he is emulating US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who made unacceptable comments about the Russian Government after our bombers arrived in Venezuela, telling us how we must spend public funds.

As for President Donald Trump, he doesn’t seem to know his own mind. You said he was really willing to meet with President Vladimir Putin. He said when boarding the plane for the G20 summit that he was looking forward to a face-to-face with President Putin. But when he disembarked in Argentina several hours later, he said he had called off the meeting. He did an about-face, as the saying goes. Maybe they really don’t want to conduct a constructive dialogue with us?

Sergey Lavrov: They are extremely pragmatic people. They want to talk when this can benefit them, especially now that the business mentality is taking a hold in US foreign policy.

This is a very short-sighted position, because it can help you get something today but will undermine your long-term positions and harm your strategic interests. The Americans live in two-year cycles. Every two years they need to show everyone that they are tough guys who can do what others can’t, and that everyone else is soft.

Look at the unilateral sanctions that have been imposed not only on Russia or China but also on some of the US allies. The United States continues to threaten others with sanctions and imposes new sanctions simply for violating a US law that prohibits trade with Iran. There are no such laws in France or Germany. But when their companies engage in business that is perfectly legal from the viewpoint of their own legislation or international law, they are forced to pay billions of dollars in a deal that would allow them to work in the United States. This is racketeering.

There are also sanctions that concern settlements in US dollars. In the near future before the next elections, these sanctions may benefit US companies, weaken their rivals and increase employment in the United States, but in the long run they will undermine trust in the dollar. This will harm the fundamental interests of the US because many countries are thinking of reducing their dependence on the dollar.

Question: Do the Americans see this danger?

Sergey Lavrov: Analysts possibly do. But politicians think in the moment, they want to win the election, and they don’t care what happens afterwards.

As for Mr Pompeo, it’s a long time since we met. I think he is no longer involved with US policy towards Russia. But both of us understand that we need to meet and to talk.

As of now, US foreign policy has been clearly delegated to John Bolton. He has come to Russia several times. He has met with President Putin and his counterpart, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev. I have held rather lengthy talks with Mr Bolton. There is a kind of dialogue.

We have not met for a long time at the level of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the US Department of State. The last time was in New York in September, when the foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council held a traditional meeting. But it was not a bilateral meeting. Our deputies and department directors hold meetings, although the Americans often pull stunts and cancel meetings with barely a day’s notice. But as I said, we don’t hold on to grudges.

Question: Why?

Sergey Lavrov: Because a grudge is a heavy burden to carry.

Question: Well, a grudge is, indeed, a heavy burden to carry. For example, what is Russia doing in the Council of Europe, where it has no right to vote? Why does such a sovereign state as Russia submit to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg? Why don’t we withdraw completely from such organisations, where we don’t play any role at all? We can use this money to build schools. What are we doing there? And how much do we pay to the European Court of Human Rights?

Sergey Lavrov: We don’t pay anything to the European Court of Human Rights. We pay for its decisions. Do you know what percentage of our payments to the ECHR has to do with Russian courts’ decisions on payments to our citizens that the Russian Treasury violates and withholds the payments?

Question: In that case we must get back to our own problems. Why are we running to foreigners for help?

Sergey Lavrov: As you probably know, we are now facing a situation that we are actively discussing: the future of Russia’s Council of Europe membership is in question. There is no doubt that our decision to join this organisation was sincere and met the country’s interests. You should discuss this matter with judges, representatives of the Supreme and Constitutional courts and the Ministry of Justice. A huge set of laws that make life easier for Russian citizens and protect their life and rights was passed during our cooperation with the Council of Europe and as a result of our perception of the practices that could be applied to Russian legislation. Russian citizens are forced to apply to the European Court of Human Rights after a Russian court has ruled that the state must pay them. If the state has failed to pay a citizen in compliance with a Russian court’s ruling, do you think that therefore he or she does not deserve this payment?

Question: Of course, they deserve them. But instead of taking the case to a foreign court, we need to sort things out at home. What is your opinion of this?

Sergey Lavrov: In some cases, we were unable to rectify the situation without the ECHR. I will tell you more: Russia is now by no means the main client of the European Court of Human Rights.

We make an overwhelming majority of payments under Russian courts’ decisions. Please keep that in mind.

Question: Are we going to leave the Council of Europe?

Sergey Lavrov: To show that we don’t care?

Question: If they don’t take us seriously, yes, we should show them that we don’t care.

Sergey Lavrov: No, we shouldn’t do that. Instead we should have a sense of dignity.

Speaking of the Council of Europe, we have no right to vote only at the Parliamentary Assembly, which would be an unimportant body if it weren’t for its function to elect judges, the Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

No one has deprived us of any rights at the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which is a regulatory, rather than consultative, body.

Today, we are trying to convince the Council of Europe that this situation cannot last indefinitely, and that, under the Council of Europe Statute, all member countries have equal rights at all its bodies. The incumbent Secretary General’s legal findings state that the PACE decision runs counter to the Council of Europe Statute and should therefore be modified.

We have repeatedly explained to our colleagues that there can be no halfway decisions here. They tried to assuage our concerns by proposing to reinstate our right to elect officials, including judges, the Secretary General and the Commissioner for Human Rights, but to withhold all other rights for the time being. We emphatically rejected this offer.

The moment of truth will come in June, when the new Council of Europe Secretary General will be elected. If we don’t take part in this election, it would send a message that the Council of Europe is losing its importance for us as an organisation that does not respect the principle of equality.

Question: You mentioned dignity. As I see it, our dignity is being trampled in various situations.

Poland has destroyed many monuments to Soviet soldiers. Actually, 600,000 of our boys were killed there. Why doesn’t Russia give an appropriate response in line with diplomatic traditions?

Do you want to hit our monuments? In that case, we will send bulldozers to Katyn, and we will demolish your monuments if you touch ours.

Sergey Lavrov: Are you serious?

Question: Absolutely. Why can they wreck our monuments?

Sergey Lavrov: I wish you were not serious. I was hoping this is a joke.

Question: Unfortunately, my colleague is voicing a common opinion that is expressed by our audiences. What can you say on this score?

Sergey Lavrov: I believe this position has nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity or Christianity in general.

Question: Are they acting like Christians?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, not.

Question: So, where is our symmetrical diplomatic response? You do something nasty to us, and we will reciprocate. Where is our dignity?

Sergey Lavrov: Our dignity tells us that we must be above all this, and that we must never descend to the level of these neo-Nazis.

Question: We are always above that. We were above it in the Skripal case too.

But what about the Skripals? Where is our consul? Where is Yulia Skripal? Local lawyers ask me why our consuls are not suing to see Yulia Skripal – dead or alive. After all, she is a Russian citizen. The West operates only through courts. The state should sue and demand access to Yulia Skripal. All conventions are on our side. Why are we being so sluggish?

Why don’t we sue, when British Prime Minister Theresa May accuses our President of having committed murder? We could hire Swiss lawyers and sue. Could it be that there are things we don’t know and an action of this sort is being pursued?

Sergey Lavrov: If you followed our Ministry’s reports, including the information delivered by the ministry spokesperson at her briefings, you would have a somewhat different picture of what is happening.

We have been acting in full conformity with international law, because English law is of no help in this case. There is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which makes it mandatory for the British government to grant us access to a Russian citizen. Sergey Skripal is an arguable case because he has dual citizenship, but Yulia Skripal is only a Russian citizen.

Question: But we can apply to the British court, can’t we? Lawyers in the UK explained this to me. And Swiss layers also said we could apply to the British court for the Russian citizen to be delivered to us or at least in order to arrange her meeting with a Russian consul.

Sergey Lavrov: No court will help us. There is an international obligation, the Vienna Convention, which is absolutely irrevocable. And we will demand that it is obeyed.

Question: What stage are the talks at now?

Sergey Lavrov: I am not yet through with the courts. Let me remind you how we tried to deal with the Litvinenko case, when [Litvinenko] was also allegedly poisoned.

The court did not want to prove anything. The court just made the investigation secret and conducted it in a format that banned the demonstration of security service documents.

In this instance, when we demanded information on the Skripals that was linked, among other things, to the British exploiting the Skripal theme at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, we got an official reply to the effect that this issue was related to British security. For this reason, it is not subject to any disclosure or London’s meaningful reply.

Question: But international law has precedence over their law, hasn’t it? Does the Vienna Convention have precedence?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes it does.

Question: Can’t we achieve anything through the courts?

Sergey Lavrov: We will continue to press for a meeting with our citizen.

Question: But isn’t it their minister who said that Russia should “shut up and go away?”

Sergey Lavrov: He (the UK Defence Secretary. – Ed.) is a man whose oversized amour propre is superimposed upon an inferiority complex. I saw his colleague too, and it is very sad that the UK assigns foreign ministers of this sort to handle foreign policy.

He contacted me when five ministers of foreign affairs of the five permanent member states of the UN Security Council were meeting in New York. The five of us were just sitting around a table. After that he went out and started saying that he had challenged me on 12 counts and accused me of everything.

Question: What did you say to him in response?

Sergey Lavrov: I didn’t say anything: you can’t talk with people like that.

As for the Skripal case, I can assure you that we will not drop this issue. I am absolutely convinced that we must demand answers, just like with the Malaysian Boeing. And the longer our partners delay with a response, the more out of line they will look.

Question: But we have been sued by the relatives of those who have died in the Boeing crash.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, they have sued us. There is one thing we need to understand. They say that we have done it to the Skripals and that we must say whether it was done on orders from President Putin or whether he had lost control over the secret services which did this without his consent. Nobody else had a clear reason [to poison the Skripals], so it is highly likely that Russia is responsible, they say.

This is baby talk, not a serious investigation.

We put concrete questions to them: Where is Yulia Skripal? Why has her cousin been denied a visa which we requested officially many times? Unfortunately, you can’t sue for a visa.

We ask similar questions about the Malaysian Boeing. Why haven’t they included in their investigation the material that has been provided by Almaz-Antey, the producer of the Buk systems? Why haven’t the Ukrainians provided their radar data, unlike Russia, or the transcript of what their air controllers said? Why haven’t the Americans provided their satellite information? No answer. But we will continue to ask these questions and we will keep reminding everyone that a day will come when these shameful intrigues will end.

Question: Maybe we should not remind but demand? There are already jokes about your recommendations on social media. Can I tell one of them?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, certainly. I have read many things about myself.

Question: Sergey Lavrov enters a room for talks with Mike Pompeo, opens his briefcase and takes out a jar of fat chance, a dead donkey’s ears and a heap of fig leaves. He lights a cigarette and politely says “Hello” to Mike Pompeo.

Maybe this is how we should talk with them, not “express concern” or “draw their attention” to problems?

Sergey Lavrov: The meeting I had in this joke was not with Pompeo but with Taro Kono.

Really, do you want us to use four-letter words in international discourse, so that we will all be in the same league? No, I think that if Jupiter is angry, it means he is wrong.

I have read your reports from hot spots, and I respect you for what you are doing. We have criticised our Western colleagues for not sending their journalists to Donbass to report the truth. There are few Western journalists in Syria as well. When somebody wants to drive you mad and you resort to foul language in response, I would caution against this, even if we are not full of grace ourselves. We must not exceed the bounds of decency even if we ourselves set the boundaries.

Question: Is it true that the Foreign Ministry cellars are stocked with coffers of your great patience?

Sergey Lavrov: We have no cellars.

Question: I have worked in Armenia and Georgia. The situation there is dramatic.

I am shocked that we have let go of the situation in Georgia. The Americans are building a deep-water port in Anaklia, a stone’s throw from Sochi. Initially, they planned to deploy their nuclear submarines there, which would be extremely dangerous for us. A NATO base is under construction near Tbilisi. They have signed an official declaration to this effect. And there are three bio laboratories in Georgia.

The Americans are training nine motorised battalions. When I asked who these battalions would be used against, the answer was, “Against our enemies, against Russia.”

President Elect Salome Zurabishvili said at her inauguration that she would do her utmost to fight the Russian occupation.

The situation is very serious, considering that the Americans have failed to build a naval base in Crimea. But now they will build it on our doorstep, on Abkhazia’s border with Georgia. Yet we remain silent.

The Georgians who are on our side – 40 per cent of people in Georgia are for rapprochement and 80 per cent for dialogue with Russia – say that we are feeding them.

Their shops are stocked with Russian goods. There were 1.6 million [Russian] tourists.

Sergey Lavrov: I know this.

Question: They ask why we keep silent, why we don’t say to them that either they shut down the bases, which are a direct threat to our security, or we close the border to their goods.

Sergey Lavrov: Where did you find these highway advisers?

Question: Why do we sell Georgian wines? They are making money through us, and at the same time they are fighting against our “occupation.”

Sergey Lavrov: You surely know that Ukrainians earn millions of roubles in Russia.

Question: We must respond to this. Why do we remain the whipping boys?

Sergey Lavrov: We don’t say that we know all the answers. How can we respond? Close the border? Sever all ties?

Question: The Georgians themselves have proposed closing the border and suspending trade and money transfers until the construction of a base on Russia’s doorstep is stopped. They complain that we don’t have a policy towards Georgia, that we are glad that Mikheil Saakashvili is no longer in Georgia. But we forget that there are very many other anti-Russia forces working there.

Sergey Lavrov: Just imagine how it would be if we severed the relations which we have been developing in recent years.

First we launched chartered flights. Now we have scheduled flights, and their number has increased to include Tbilisi, Moscow, St Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and Kutaisi. The planes are filled with tourists. Our trade is on the upswing. I believe Russia has become Georgia’s largest trade partner. Our civil societies hold regular events. People are meeting, talking and trying to understand which point in our relations we have reached.

Imagine that we stop all this simply to please your friends, who feel hurt. We stop all this, but they complete the base anyway and train the battalions, and the bio laboratory continues working. Who will stand to gain from this?

Question: Should there be some response from our side? What should we do?

Sergey Lavrov: I would like to ask you, do you think that we need to respond just to establish our importance or what?

Question: We do need to show our importance.

Sergey Lavrov: And that’s all?

Question: No, that’s not all. There are levers of economic pressure, similar to military ones. If Georgia lives at our expense, it will howl when it has nothing to eat.

Sergey Lavrov: I assure you, they will find a way to live. I would like to look at this from a different angle. Are you proposing to choke Georgia? What for? You say 40 percent of the population supports contacts with Russia. Break these contacts, and it will be 2 percent.

Question: But we will need to explain why we are doing this. We can say: it threatens our security.

Sergey Lavrov: Once again. The most serious threat here is the biological laboratories. I am confident that they will not go anywhere with their battalions. They understand that we have allied relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and we will not allow anyone to attack our allies. There are bio labs not only in Georgia, but also in Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. It will be useless to talk about it with Ukraine. We are talking about it with Georgia through the relevant organisations, the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological and Toxin Weapons. Similarly, we are talking with Kazakhstan and Armenia. Georgians have already invited diplomats to their bio lab to look around. We thanked them because it was a large group of diplomats and we noted that we would be more interested in sending professionals who understand what is being done in this bio lab better than diplomats. We need to know how big a threat these experiments pose to the Russian Federation and neighbouring countries.

On principle, I am categorically against a foreign policy that amounts to breaking off relations every time someone does us wrong. Otherwise we would have to break off relations with America and Britain. Do you by any chance have friends there who offer you advice?

Question: America clearly responds with sanctions. We do not impose sanctions. Introduce sanctions against Georgia. Armenia is our strategic ally. Why did we allow the building of three US bio labs there in 2016? We have the best friendship in the Eurasian Economic Union.

Sergey Lavrov: With Armenia, we are completing the work on a document that will guarantee the non-presence of the foreign military in these biological labs and full transparency.

Question: And Kazakhstan?

Sergey Lavrov: The same.

Question: Will they remove these labs? Or make sure there are no foreign nationals?

Sergey Lavrov: You are not listening to me. I have just told you that an agreement is being prepared that will guarantee that there will be no foreign military in the bio labs and everything that is done there will be transparent, with guarantees, without any threats or risks.

Question: Consider this example: When you come to Armenia, you find 19 Russian diplomats and 2,500 American workers there – an impressive ratio, of course. I do not understand how we can have only 19 diplomats in such a strategically important country. Political strategists in Armenia say: “Russia really uses clumsy force against the former Soviet republics. It never works with the opposition, so for Russia, Nikol Pashinyan came as a huge surprise. Russia never works with the civil society, but only with people in power who are hated in society and whose ratings, according to your Russian officers, are below zero. What is it, the blindness of your diplomacy? I do not know; it is unexplainable. There are normal people in the opposition with whom you could be cooperating.”

Sergey Lavrov: Who writes all this to you?

Question: Political observers with whom I spoke in Armenia.

Sergey Lavrov: This “your diplomacy” – have Armenians written this?

Question: Yes, Armenians. Why isn’t Russian diplomacy working with the opposition? Remember the last time we argued about soft power? There are 5,000 US NGOs that are canvassing young people who then grow up pro-America and anti-Russia, but there are no Russian NGOs or media there. We have already spoken about this many times.

Sergey Lavrov: So what is your bottom line? As I understand it, the options are either to send 3,000 diplomats and create 5,000 NGOs there, or to break off diplomatic relations.

Question: This is where I think soft power is the best option.

Sergey Lavrov: Why?

Question: At least the people’s attitude to Russia was good; now it has grown worse. It will continue deteriorating. The youth is growing up.

Sergey Lavrov: We are treated well in Georgia. And you propose breaking off relations.

Question: What ideas are being fed to young people? They are raised on the idea that Russia is bad. They are now arguing who was the first to attack.

Sergey Lavrov: Where – in Georgia?

Question: I just watched a talk show where they are proving to children that it was Russia who attacked Georgia ten years ago. And the children are listening.

Sergey Lavrov: There is a report prepared for the EU by a group of experts led by Heidi Tagliavini, which clearly blames Saakashvili for starting the war. Nobody in the EU has contested this conclusion. Now they say that our response was unacceptable. This is sheer hypocrisy.

As for soft power, I fully agree on this. There are two or three times fewer Russian diplomats in Armenia or any other CIS country than American ones. Our diplomatic staff numbers 2,500 together with rotation personnel.

Question: The Americans have the largest staff in Bagdad and second largest in Armenia.

Sergey Lavrov: They have their own criteria for their work. And we have our traditions and financial limitations, because their non-governmental team working in the former Soviet republics costs big money. In most cases, these NGOs are financed by the Agency for International Development of the US State Department, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), which is affiliated with the Democratic Party, or other similar organisations. George Soros is very active there, just as in many other parts of our space and beyond. Of course, they have the advantage in numbers. We cannot respond in kind; we cannot create the same number of puppet organisations. Very many of them have a provocative negative agenda.

I agree that we must work with all political forces, which we are doing. We are working with everyone not only in the South Caucasus but also in other post-Soviet republics. We are working with registered opposition groups. We don’t work with nonregistered or underground groups. I believe that this is correct. We have maintained ties with various parliamentary groups, including the nine MPs who represented Nikol Pashinyan’s party when Serzh Sargsyan was president of Armenia.

It is another matter that we have probably acquired immunity against revolutions, because everything the West is doing in the post-Soviet space is preparing revolutions. This may be our problem, but we definitely cannot be blamed for this. We have survived several revolutions, which claimed a great number of lives and destroyed cities and villages. We don’t want to see a repetition of this, and we don’t wish it on others.

Therefore, the conclusion is simple: we must work with society and people, promote projects of interest to them in culture, language, sport, education and people-to-people interaction. I believe we can report certain positive results in this sphere. But we must not stop now. You can’t have enough of such events. We have established interregional forums, days of culture and educational exchanges with nearly all CSTO countries. We are opening branches of our universities there. I have recently visited Azerbaijan where MGIMO University is opening a branch. It is a very popular form of cooperation.

Question: Yet the most influential instrument is mass media. But Margarita Simonyan cannot work for all of us. We need our own local media outlets that will look to you in their work. Very many people would like to work in this way. But they simply don’t have the money.

Sergey Lavrov: Exactly.

Question: Do you mean that we don’t have the money for this?

Sergey Lavrov: The Foreign Ministry doesn’t.

Question: Why cannot we ask our oligarchs? They could be made responsible for certain areas.

Sergey Lavrov: Those of our people who have big money buy media outlets, including in Russia. If they do the same abroad, we would not complain.

Question: The Americans do this. They have more money.

Sergey Lavrov: But they don’t buy on behalf of the state.

Question: They set up a state fund to finance such projects.

Question: Why not lease the Kuril Islands? The sovereignty would be ours either way. Hong Kong was once leased on these terms. China leased a village and got a major modern city.

Question: There is such a thing as zugzwang in chess, when any move leads to a worse position. We have not had this peace treaty, so why do we need this “piece of paper?” We have diplomatic and economic relations, but no military relations. Nor will there be any in the future. Why do we need a peace treaty with Japan, if we consider the Kuril issue on this basis?

Sergey Lavrov: We are interested in having good relations with Japan.

The situation is very simple. We are people obeying international law. In 1956, the USSR signed an agreement with Japan, the so-called 1956 Declaration. When the USSR was dissolved, the Russian Federation was recognised not just as the legal successor state (all constituent republics except the Baltic states became legal successors) but the USSR’s only continuing state. This is the legal status under which we assumed all the obligations as well as all the assets of the USSR. This was one of the grounds for signing, within the CIS, a treaty on the “zero option” for properties abroad. We assumed all of the USSR’s debt obligations as all the properties were transferred to us (something that is happening today). This is why, when President Vladimir Putin was elected and this issue came up for the first time during his presidency in some situation (I think it was a meeting with then prime minister, Yoshiro Mori) he said that as the successor to the USSR we assumed the 1956 Declaration and were prepared to sign a peace treaty based on that.

In Singapore, we agreed to declare that we had come to terms on revisiting negotiations on signing a peace treaty based on the 1956 Declaration. In this regard, it is very important to understand what this document is all about and basically what situation has taken shape around it. It says: You shall sign a peace treaty. After that, the USSR – as a goodwill gesture and with regard for the interests of the neighbourly Japanese people, not as a move to return [the islands] – will be prepared to transfer the Habomai Ridge and Shikotan Island. President Putin has repeatedly explained, including at his news conference in Singapore and later in Buenos Aires, that this was not a directly applicable obligation of the USSR that had transferred to Russia and that the parties would have to discuss how, to whom, when, and in what form to transfer [whatever there is to transfer].

This was in 1956. After that were the events of 1960, when Japan and the US signed the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, under which the Americans could deploy their military bases practically wherever they wanted, in any part of Japanese territory. Under the same treaty, the US is creating the Asian segment of its antimissile defence system and deploying antimissile launchers that can be used to fire Tomahawk missiles.

Japan has withdrawn from the Declaration of its own free will. Of course, the USSR responded to the signing of the US-Japan security treaty. Therefore, when we say “based on the Declaration,” we cannot ignore the fact that the events of 1960 have taken place since then, which, from the point of view of a US military presence on the Japanese islands, are increasingly of a very serious nature as a threat to our security. We have explained all of this to our Japanese colleagues at talks with foreign ministry and security council representatives. We are waiting for a response. For us, this is a problem of direct practical importance.

But, most importantly, when we say “based on the 1956 Declaration,” this expresses Japan’s unconditional recognition of the results of World War II. So far, our Japanese colleagues are not ready for this, and they are sending all sorts of signals to the effect that this will not work out. This is a serious issue.

Recently, my Japanese counterpart went on record as saying that he apologised to the Japanese media for having avoided answering the question about the upcoming talks, on several occasions. He stated that he was unwilling to discuss the subject because Japan’s position was unchanged but, if he said this he would provoke his Russian colleagues to state their point of view. Consider that it was not he who provoked us. It is just that we were never ashamed of our position. If Japan’s position is unchanged then we are in the same position we have always been in. This is basically a refusal to recognise the results of World War II, while recognising the results of World War II is an inalienable first step in any talks, let alone any legal negotiations.

Question: Should we perhaps leave this matter to the judgment of future generations and place it on record as is?

Sergey Lavrov: We do not refuse to talk, but I have outlined the terms and the framework, within which these talks will proceed.

Question: May I ask you a few private questions that are often asked by our readers – in the blitz mode?

Sergey Lavrov: Go ahead.

Question: You are one of the most popular and best-known politicians in our country. How do you feel in that capacity?

SergeyLavrov: I have never thought about it. It is a pleasure for me to communicate with people when I go somewhere, whether on a working mission or not. I talk to young people. It is interesting to listen to questions and comments. If my work meets with a positive response, I am pleased for our Ministry.

Question: As you know, the former Soviet Foreign Minister Alexei Gromyko was dubbed in the West as nothing other than “Mr No”. Andrei Kozyrev must have been a “Mr Yes”. How would you describe your own image in similar terms? Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov is “Mr what?”

Question: In one of your interviews, you said that you respect Vladimir Vysotsky’s work. What words from his songs would you use to describe the current international situation?

SergeyLavrov (laughing): “Lukomorye exists no more…” and so on and so forth.

Question: Your opponents were talking such nonsense lately. What self-composure you have. Is it hard to deal with a negotiating partner if you feel that he or she has a grudge against you?

Sergey Lavrov: I have grown used to it.

Question: What helps you remain so calm and coolheaded?

Sergey Lavrov: Maybe life has hardened me over the past years. In New York, I had a good schooling in terms of responding to all sorts of crisis situations at the UN Security Council. Someone would dash in and say that something had erupted, broken out and it was necessary to urgently adopt a resolution, when we wanted to work the matter through and take no abrupt steps.

Question: Were there episodes during your service as minister, when things grew very alarming and even frightening?

SergeyLavrov: Probably not, considering that I was already accustomed to crisis situations in my work prior to my appointment to this post. Maybe, that experience helps.

Question: Do you feel like putting work aside

And sailing down the river with a guitar,

Making a campfire at sunset

And talking of peace and love?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, certainly. Moreover, I even do that.

Question: What is the largest fish that you caught during your river trips? Where did it happen and how much did it weigh?

SergeyLavrov: I do not remember, because, actually, I am not really a fishing sort. When we go canoeing down the river Katun, two of our group members handle the fishing and I break camp and watch the campfire.

Question: Suppose you had a time machine, who of our country’s rulers of the past years or even centuries would you like to talk to and what essential question would you ask that person?

Sergey Lavrov: Among our fellow countrymen – Alexander Gorchakov. Much has been written about him and all his diplomatic achievements are well known. I would ask him exactly the same thing that you asked me – about his self-composure that enabled him to return Crimea.

Question: Who of the US presidents of the past would you like to talk to and what would you ask him?

Sergey Lavrov: Maybe, Harry Truman. After Franklin Roosevelt’s policy, he made a sharp turn towards the “cold war”. It would be interesting to understand why. Though, as a matter of fact, it looks like everyone understands everything. The USSR was a real ally of Britain and the United States in the war, but maybe a situational ally, after all, though that situation was about the life or death of the whole of humanity. Almost. And it was a genuine alliance. Nevertheless, they never fully considered us to be one of theirs, and back then they already saw a threat.

Question: If you had the opportunity to turn back the clock and influence some event in our country or elsewhere, what would you change?

SergeyLavrov: First, I have no opportunity to turn back the clock. Second, I do not want to. Third, we all know that history has no “ifs”. Whatever God does is for the best. There are many proverbs, for example, “it does not hurt to dream.”

Question: Will the Eurasian Economic Union survive as an entity, considering our problems with President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko and Kazakhstan?

Sergey Lavrov: It will survive. In any event, we have common interests. In the five years of its existence or even less (there used to be a Customs Union, followed by the Eurasian Economic Union), we are making great strides forward, as compared with the deadlines that allowed Europe to achieve the same level of integration.

Question: It was easier for us.

Sergey Lavrov: Nevertheless, economic ties were disrupted considerably after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Question: President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko says that he is planning to leave the Eurasian Economic Union.

Sergey Lavrov: Just like other countries’ leaders, we judge the policies of other countries by their deeds, rather than words. When US President Donald Trump conducts talks, he also makes all kinds of statements.

Question: Is this blackmail?

Sergey Lavrov: It is preparations for talks, if you like. I cannot say that US President Donald Trump is blackmailing anyone, although he exerts tough pressure.

Question: What would be the first thing you saved if the Foreign Ministry building caught fire?

Sergey Lavrov: God forbid. We don’t need any self-fulfilling prophecies, and we have a good fire safety system.

Question: What do you eat to improve your mood?

Sergey Lavrov: I prefer tasty food.

Question: Could you be more specific? All of us like tasty food.

Sergey Lavrov: Sauerkraut shchi and borsch. I like soups very much.

Question: How do you relax? And what is your favourite music? How do you manage to stay in shape all the time? Perhaps you like rap music?

Sergey Lavrov: I am not into rap music. I like bard singers, including Vladimir Vysotsky, Bulat Okudzhava, Yury Vizbor and Oleg Mityayev. And I love the outdoors.

Question: If on New Year’s Eve you found a magic lantern that could grant any personal wish, what would it be?

Sergey Lavrov: A personal wish? I don’t know. Never thought about it. I am not used to making wishes. I am more of a realist than a dreamer.

Question: So when the Kremlin chimes welcome the New Year in, you never make a wish?

Sergey Lavrov: No. On my rafting team, we have this principle – never drink to anything in advance. We do not celebrate what is to come, but celebrate what happened. If it’s someone’s birthday, we raise a glass of champagne. But we never toast what is still to come. It is even considered wrong.

Question: Figuratively speaking, if we take Russia’s foreign policy in recent years, was there anything you would toast with a glass of champagne with your colleagues?

Sergey Lavrov: I am not assessing the work of my Ministry now. One of our most significant projects in recent years was the chemical disarmament agreement in Syria, which helped us avoid an act of American aggression. This agreement was documented in a UN Security Council resolution, but, unfortunately, after that, the OPCW, whose job was to physically remove and destroy toxic substances from Syria, suffered a hostile takeover from the inside.

Question: Do you mean following the Skripal case?

Sergey Lavrov: No, this was not following the Skripal case. It primarily had to do with Syria. It was a separate story. Some of our western partners are now trying to replace international law with a “rules-based order.” But what they mean is not any universally agreed rules, but those they consider convenient for themselves. Western media are already openly writing about it. In particular, the British newspaper The Times wrote that the departure from international law is leading to a very unstable system, where relationships will be determined by the balance of power, brute force or economic and financial pressure such as blackmail, and bilateral agreements. This is roughly what the Americans are trying to do now, breaking the multilateral structures, including the World Trade Organisation, and moving from relations with the EU to resolving all problems bilaterally. Therefore, the agreement on chemical disarmament in Syria was indeed a serious achievement. Now, under various far-fetched pretexts, the Americans and their closest allies are trying to claim that not everything has been destroyed. Although international organisations, namely the OPCW, in the presence of observers, including those from the United States, verified the destruction of all chemical facilities and substances in Syria. Such are our partners.

Question: Do we still have any influence in that organisation?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes.

Question: Do you remember the most unusual New Year gift you received or gave?

Sergey Lavrov: My “hard drive” does not store such things. They have been erased from memory. These days I am more busy thinking about work than about the New Year.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all the listeners and readers of Komsomolskaya Pravda a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. All the best to you, good health and good luck.

The intentional provocation executed by Kiev saw three Ukrainian naval vessels seized by Russia. The vessels were intentionally violating protocol for passing through the Strait – protocol previously agreed upon by Kiev and previously observed by Ukrainian naval vessels.

In the wake of this incident – predictable calls are being made to use it as a pretext to expand NATO even further east, with senior American Foreign Policy Council fellow and former professor at the US Army War College Stephen Blank declaring the need for the US to “lease” Ukrainian ports in the Sea of Azov, patrol the sea with US warships, all while committing to the “full-fledged” arming of Ukrainian forces.

Blank’s commentary – published in The Hill in a piece titled, “Russia’s attack on Ukraine is an act of war,” predicates an anti-Russian narrative and NATO’s eastward expansion into Ukraine upon a number of blatant falsehoods.

He mentions Russia’s “seizure” of Crimea, its “claiming that Crimea, the Sea of Azov, and the Kerch Strait are exclusively Russian waters,” and the building of the Crimean Bridge which Blank claims is impeding Ukrainian commerce in the Sea of Azov – all as Russian provocations.

However, Blank conveniently omits the US-NATO backed putsch that seized power in Ukraine in 2013 – setting off Ukrainian-Russian tensions in the first place. Nowhere in Blank’s commentary does he mention the prominent role paramilitary Neo-Nazi organizations have played in both overthrowing the elected government in 2013 and militancy carried out against Russian businesses, institutions, and even Ukrainians of Russian decedent – particularly in Donbass, eastern Ukraine.

Blank would even feign ignorance over Russian President Vladimir Putin’s motives in repatriating Crimea and taking measures against a now fully hostile Ukraine sitting on Russia’s borders.

Also conveniently omitted from Blank’s commentary was any mention of decades of NATO’s eastward expansion along with various episodes in NATO’s history where it waged wars well beyond its jurisdiction and mandate, including in Libya and Afghanistan.

Coupled together with Blank’s prescription for a “response” – it is abundantly clear who stood most to benefit from the Kerch Strait incident – especially considering the systematic expansion of NATO that has been ongoing long before President Putin ever came to power.

Blank suggests:

Beyond imposing more sanctions, waging a robust informational campaign and transferring more arms to Ukraine we can and must do something more innovative and decisive. We have the means and precedent for doing so.

He then suggests (emphasis added):

Ukraine could lease ports on the Black Sea and even in the Sea of Azov to the U.S. while we lend them military equipment they need for air, naval, and ground warfare. The U.S. or NATO naval vessels could then stay at those ports for as long as necessary without bringing Ukraine formally into NATO. It would greatly diminish the chance of Russian attack if those forces patrolled the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.

Blank concludes by claiming:

Not only do these forces deter future Russian attacks they show everyone, not least in Moscow, that Putin’s reckless adventurism has merely brought NATO into Ukraine to stay, the exact opposite of his goals.

Yet, claiming Russia’s actions prompted NATO’s entrance into Ukraine is preposterous – especially considering NATO’s decades-long and relentless expansion eastward. The US-NATO backed putsch in 2013 was aimed wholly at placing a proxy regime in power that would uproot all Russian influence and interests in Ukraine, fast-track Ukraine’s entry into both the European Union and NATO, and join the front-line of NATO expansion – literally right on Russia’s borders.

NATO Expansion was the Goal Long Before “Putin’s Reckless Adventurism”

Despite assurances from senior US representatives to the Soviet Union toward the end of the Cold War that NATO would not be expanded “one inch to the east,” it has since been expanded directly to Russia’s borders.

NATO members bordering Russia now include Estonia, Latvia, and Norway – with Georgia and Ukraine both bordering Russia and being considered “aspirant” countries.

Norway was host of one of the largest NATO exercises in decades – Trident Juncture. Other exercises are regularly held in the Baltic states bordering Russia. And US troops have carried out training, have provided arms to, and have ensured compliant regimes remain in power in Ukraine and Georgia.

Then US Secretary of State James Baker – as revealed in now declassified documents maintained in archives by George Washington University – personally and repeatedly made assurances to then Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not be further expanded toward Russian borders.

We fought a war [World War 2] together to bring peace to Europe. We didn’t do so well handling the peace in the Cold War. And now we are faced with rapid and fundamental change. And we are in a better position to cooperate in preserving peace. I want you to know one thing for certain. The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral advantage in this process.

In other words – the US recognized the Soviet Union’s role in defeating Nazi Germany and admitted both nations failed to broker peace in the war’s aftermath. The US also stated it sought to cooperate with Russia regarding the reunification of Germany and the post-Cold War political order in Eastern Europe. It would stand to reason that in exchange for any sort of cooperation from Moscow, certain assurances would have to be made that NATO would not be expanded further eastward.

Baker would continue, claiming (emphasis added):

All our allies and East Europeans we have spoken to have told us that they want us to maintain a presence in Europe. I am not sure whether you favor that or not. But let me say that if our allies want us to go, we will be gone in a minute. Indeed, if they want us to leave, we’ll go and I can assure you that the sentiment of the American people is such that they will want us to leave immediately. The mechanism by which we have a US military presence in Europe is NATO. If you abolish NATO, there will be no more US presence.

Of course, if the sentiment of the American people was and is for the US to withdraw its military presence from Europe – as a defender of global democracy – the US finds itself making a very undemocratic decision by keeping its military in Europe regardless.

Baker then claims (emphasis added):

We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is part of NATO, there would no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.

Baker would reiterate this point by asking Gorbachev the question:

Would you prefer a united Germany outside of NATO that is independent and has no US forces or would you prefer a united Germany with ties to NATO and assurances that there would be no extension of NATO’s current jurisdiction eastward?

Obviously then, just as now, Russia had nothing to gain by allowing NATO to continue expanding eastward. A meeting between then German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Gorbachev following the Baker-Gorbachev meeting would again reiterate commitments not to expand NATO any further eastward.

The US has – in retrospect and to no one’s surprise – claimed that the meetings, language used, and agreements were non-binding, misinterpreted, and ultimately did not equate to any sort of constraint on NATO’s expansion, including up to and along Russia’s borders.Some have claimed that the assurances only applied to NATO’s presence in Germany – but clearly Baker’s assurances of not expanding NATO’s jurisdiction eastward inside of Germany was an acknowledgement that NATO’s move eastward – anywhere – was seen as a threat and provocation by Moscow.

If the US understood that eastward expansion of NATO’s jurisdiction inside of Germany would be perceived rightfully as a threat and provocation, why wouldn’t it be equally understood that eastward expansion outside of Germany and up to Russia’s borders would be perceived as an even greater threat and provocation? Wouldn’t the US equally see similar expansion by Russia westward as a threat and provocation?

Putting the Shoe on the Other Foot – How Would Washington React to “Russian Expansion?”

To understand how bad NATO expansion actually looks outside the bubble of American exceptionalism and just what sort of situation Moscow is faced with – consider what Washington’s reaction would be to a Russian-backed coup in Canada, Mexico, or both.

Consider both nation’s hosting Russian troops and receiving Russian arms with high-level Russian politicians vowing to overthrow the political order of the United States next.

Consider as Russia did this, it also imposed sanctions on the United States – crippling its economy – then blamed Washington’s “incompetence” rather than Russia’s own sanctions for the predictable economic crisis. Consider if Russia also imposed secondary sanctions on American allies, preventing them from trading with the US, thus attempting to impose a modern-day blockade on the United States itself.

It takes little imagination to conclude Washington would not tolerate such activity – and considering what the US has already done in reaction to unfounded claims of “Russian meddling” in US elections, such extreme meddling, sanctions, and military and economic encirclement carried out along America’s borders would fall well within the realm as “acts of war.”

Washington has lied the American people into serial wars abroad, destroying entire regions of the planet and killing millions. One can only imagine what Washington would do if actually confronted with genuine acts of war carried out directly on its borders.

And yet Russia’s reaction to exactly these sort of very real provocations carried out by the US and NATO all along its borders and against its allies has been measured, patient – and for some – considered even woefully inadequate.

Despite this, US policymakers and the Western media still manage to twist the narrative a full 180 degrees and portray Russia – a nation with a military budget and GDP a fraction of those of the United States – as the “aggressor.”NATO Will Not Stop Itself

It is clear that NATO’s expansion is aimed at Moscow itself. It will continue until it is forcibly stopped. This means either by Russia warding off NATO expansion until NATO collapses under its own unsustainable weight, or Russia outmatches NATO at the very edge of the West’s extent in areas Moscow clearly holds the military, sociopolitical, and economic advantage.

The Kerch Strait incident and attempts to leverage it as a pretext to place NATO warships in the Sea of Azov is a dangerous provocation – the Sea of Azov is not “international waters” and is considered by both Ukraine and Russia as an inland sea they share control over.

If people like Stephen Blank have their way and warships enter the Sea of Azov – NATO will be one step past many of the proxy wars the West is already fighting Russia through – and one step closer to fighting Russian forces directly.

Blank’s claiming NATO must act to confront Russian “provocations” is an instance of inverse reality. In this case – NATO is encircling Russia, violently stripping it of buffer states where the West and East have and could have continued to share influence to avoid conflict, and is instead turning them into frontier fortresses in preparation for what is clearly further and more direct conflict planned with Russia in the future.

A nation leading an alliance that must cross the Atlantic Ocean and several seas to station its vessels in Russian waters is not reacting to provocations – it is the provocateur.

Mission Essential is a government contractor, which primarily serves intelligence and military clients. It began as the US government’s leading provider of translation and interpretation services.

Screenshot provided in case the advert times out or is “accidentally” taken down:

The preemptive job advert was posted on November 16th and seeks “linguist candidates who speak Ukrainian to provide foreign language interpretation and translation services to support classified Contingency Operations in support of the U.S. Military in Ukraine.”

The advert also requires candidates to be able to fit in the local culture and customs, in addition to “the ability to deal inconspicuously with local populace if necessary.” Which simply means that the interpreter needs to be able to hide the fact that he is not a Ukrainian citizen, at least partly.

Unsurprisingly, the individual needs to be able to serve in a combat zone “if necessary,” in addition to being able to “live, work, and travel in harsh environments, to include living and working in temporary facilities as mission dictates.”

Considering repeated claims by the US leadership that the US is not involved in the Ukraine conflict, the vacancy posting is an operational security failure by Mission Essential. Most other vacancies posted by the company are for analysts and various linguistical and project management positions, almost predominantly in different military facilities in the US.

It is quite possible that these specialists would assist US military personnel deployed in or near the “combat zones” in Ukraine – i.e. Eastern Ukraine, and as it was expected since as early as November 16th – the Sea of Azov.